[HN Gopher] Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
___________________________________________________________________
Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
Author : hn_acker
Score : 602 points
Date : 2025-03-07 18:34 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.eff.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.eff.org)
| 9283409232 wrote:
| The people behind these "save the children" age verification
| bills are funded by verification companies looking for contracts.
| Russell Vought, Mr.Project 2025 himself, is also a massive
| proponent of using porn as an excuse for more surveillance.
| dinkblam wrote:
| age verification should be backed into the browser and not into
| websites.
|
| parents should be able to access a (password protected) setting
| in any browser that can exclude some types of websites (like
| porn).
|
| governments should be free to go after any website not respecting
| that setting.
|
| but forcing the age-verification onto websites is just moronic.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _age verification should be backed into the browser_
|
| You want a mandated block of government code in every browser?
| dinkblam wrote:
| why government code?
|
| having a checkbox that corresponds to info passed with the
| HTTP requests is hardly something that requires a library or
| more than a few lines of code
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _why government code?_
|
| Legal age verification in the browser means legislated
| code. Not line by line, necessarily, but state code in the
| browser.
| michaelmior wrote:
| Such a law doesn't necessarily have to require that every
| browser include the content filtering code. Only that
| websites must correctly report the content they serve. Of
| course then the obvious workaround for someone wanting to
| access restricted content is just to install a browser that
| does not enforce the restrictions. But that's a problem even
| if browsers were "forced" to implement this anyway. There
| would always be a browser out there that didn't adhere to
| this rule anyway.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Of course then the obvious workaround for someone
| wanting to access restricted content is just to install a
| browser that does not enforce the restrictions_
|
| You really see a world where such a law is passed and such
| browsers aren't outlawed?
| michaelmior wrote:
| Yes and no. There are (at least) two ways to effectively
| outlaw such browsers. One is penalties for the browser
| distributor. However, this really only applies to
| entities that are subject to US law. Of course the law
| could go one step further and try to go after ISPs for
| allowing access to download them, but that's already
| proved difficult in other arenas.
|
| The other way to limit access to such browsers is
| penalties for users of those browsers. But that feels
| even less likely. Even if such a law were on the books,
| how would it be enforced? Either someone would have to
| report someone using an "illegal" browser or perhaps some
| method of fingerprinting that is somehow tied back to the
| actual user. Both of these seem far-fetched to me.
|
| So perhaps such browsers would be outlawed, but I'm not
| sure it would practically do much.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| > Of course then the obvious workaround for someone wanting
| to access restricted content is just to install a browser
| that does not enforce the restrictions. But that's a
| problem even if browsers were "forced" to implement this
| anyway. There would always be a browser out there that
| didn't adhere to this rule anyway
|
| So why are you for it if the solution isn't valid?
| michaelmior wrote:
| I didn't say anywhere that I am for it.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| it would be less terrible if there were some simple, Apple ID-
| like way to simply get redirected to a govt website, put in
| your driver's license, and the website only gets a token back
| that says "yes over age/no underage".
|
| The data already exists, it's what bars use to scan IDs with
| handheld readers IIRC.
| dinkblam wrote:
| i wasn't really talking about about any "verification". just
| a way for parents to disable what they want their kid to be
| able to browse. if parents don't care to change the setting,
| their kids would be free to browse anything.
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > The data already exists, it's what bars use to scan IDs
| with handheld readers IIRC.
|
| Sorta, yeah.
|
| But the reason that works is because there's a human guarding
| the door that can assert that the hand presenting the ID is
| attached to a face that looks just like the one on the ID.
|
| Otherwise a very smart 17 year old would just get their hands
| on the UUID or whatever for literally any ID that belongs to
| somebody that's 18+. Within _hours_ of this type of system
| going into effect, you'd have the age/id version of
| bugmenot.com
| burnished wrote:
| You're implying smart 17 year olds don't make it into bars.
|
| You rarely need anything approaching %100 compliance in
| order to have an effective policy, so if anything you're
| advocating for its effectiveness when you suggest the only
| people that would be in violation are the rare precocious
| kid.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| But that's the difference. For a 17 year old to get into
| a bar, they need to, themselves, acquire a fake ID.
| Anyone selling that physical object in your jurisdiction
| would then be subject to arrest.
|
| On the internet, _one_ smart 17 year old sets up _im-
| old.lol_ and then every kid everywhere has a one-click
| age verification bypass and the service is run by an anon
| on a server outside the jurisdiction.
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > You're implying smart 17 year olds don't make it into
| bars.
|
| Sarcastically, yes :).
|
| It's a reference to the "you must be over 18/21 to enter
| this porn/alcohol site" banners. Even a "smart" 17 year
| old will figure the banner out.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| As far as I've done, I've had to upload drivers licenses to
| websites before (e.g. to open an online banking account or
| whatever) and I don't recall doing anything other than
| uploading the license.
| monksy wrote:
| That barcode contains a lot more than just your birthday. It
| contains all of the info on the license front (which includes
| your drivers license). It's a bit absurd that the bar is
| copying down your details in order to get into their bar.
| (They often store it and can/will use it for bar bans)
| mrweasel wrote:
| Countries like Denmark already have this. It's called MitID,
| and it a online government run sign in solutions used by
| banks, government institutions, online marketplace as so on.
| I believe it already contains an age "claim", so you can get
| just the age of the person logging in and nothing else. It's
| built on OAuth/OAuth2 I think, so it should be fairly simple
| to add the age information if it's not already there.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| The biggest selling point of those handheld readers bars use
| is to gather data from your ID, not to in any way verify your
| age. It's the exact opposite of what you said.
| butlike wrote:
| "I'm 65 years old, and the age verification is failing"
|
| Operator: "let me take a look sir. It's probably a bug. It's
| definitely not the censorship metrics opaquely changing
| behind the scenes, sir."
| cls59 wrote:
| And then kinds just learn how to download and run an open-
| source browser produced outside of the country that does not
| implement the setting on the client side.
| mrweasel wrote:
| I was going to say that it's a great way to teach teenagers
| how to modify and compile a browser.
|
| Moving the verification to sites also isn't going you any
| good, as the site owners could just move to more liberal
| countries.
| TylerE wrote:
| Or just uses any of a gazillion proxies that strips the "I"m
| under 18" bit.
| johnnyjeans wrote:
| I consider that a feature. Working and training problem
| solving skills and persistence through trial-and-error to the
| degree required for that kind of thing is great. I feel it's
| underappreciated in potential that treating a wide swath of
| these kinds of rules as nothing more than cattle-fences can
| have a shockingly positive effect.
|
| One of the biggest problems that grows with each generation,
| is how do you get the youth to actually engage in
| constructive development of real skills? How do you get them
| to be interested in something that will be useful for society
| down the line? Quietly looking the other way while a
| statistical minority breaks some of the safety-rails of
| society basically solves that problem. Breaking the rules is
| cool. You're basically exploiting the rebellious nature of
| the youth to trick them into learning useful skillsets. So
| long as the hurdles to circumvent the rules remain reasonably
| involved to overcome, and the secret intention remains
| unspoken, you basically double up the rewards of the rules.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| So the desire to jerk off is the ideal catalyst for being
| subversive?
|
| I mean it's not that I disagree with you, but this is what
| you are saying!!!
| notatoad wrote:
| the point should not be to make it impossible for some people
| to view certain content. the point should be to make it
| possible for a parent who controls their child's device to
| put restrictions on what that device can do - and that might
| include removing the ability to run unapproved apps.
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > but forcing the age-verification onto websites is just
| moronic.
|
| Agree.
|
| > parents should be able to access a (password protected)
| setting in any browser that can exclude some types of websites
| (like porn).
|
| How would this work? Who's going to set up the taxonomy /
| classification tree for every domain/site on the internet just
| so a guardian can say "yes to drugs, no to porn, no to news, no
| to weapons..."?
|
| Or if that's not the implementation, how would an arbitrary
| site signal to the browser what the age limit is? Once you move
| beyond a binary "require parent consent for $domain" flag,
| you're quickly approaching traditional parental control
| software.
|
| I know I'm not the only one one this site that made a bit of
| spare $ back in the day helping kids at school go _around_
| overbearing parental controls.
| generalizations wrote:
| This is the core fallacy I see in proponents of such rules:
| they think the rules can be enforced.
| convolvatron wrote:
| I think the parent had an even more important fallacy -
| that the rules can't even be _stated_. there is an implicit
| presumption that everyone everywhere agrees on what
| material is appropriate for what people and at what age.
| evil-olive wrote:
| yes, and that presumption is even older than the
| internet. this is from a 1964 Supreme Court decision [0]:
|
| > I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds
| of material I understand to be embraced within that
| shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and
| perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.
| But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture
| involved in this case is not that.
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
| simion314 wrote:
| >How would this work?
|
| Pornhub knows they do not want to have trouble so they will
| respect the browser setting and not serve minors. There could
| be an institution that can receive complains about websites
| not using this API and those wbsites can be blocked from the
| country and fined if possible until they implement the API.
|
| We need all mobile and desktop OSes to make it easy for
| parents to setup accounts for their children, the church
| could also educated the people instead of just complaining.
|
| It is not perfect, soem clever kid can find a way to reset
| the BIOS/UEFI and install Ubuntu with a fake age on his PC ,
| but most parents can feel safe and we would not have to show
| our ID card to Pornhub or even Steam because some game shows
| nipples and nipples are more dangerous in USA then nazi
| propaganda.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _We need all mobile and desktop OSes to make it easy for
| parents to setup accounts for their children_
|
| How about don't give your children devices until they're
| old enough for them. The kids of the rich are already
| mostly device free. Attention spans and eye contact
| shouldn't be a privilege.
| simion314 wrote:
| >How about don't give your children devices until they're
| old enough for them. The kids of the rich are already
| mostly device free. Attention spans and eye contact
| shouldn't be a privilege.
|
| I had access to a computer since 14, my bother since 10,
| we are both OK.
|
| My solution is to protect us the normal people from the
| extremists that want the government to protect their
| children, this solution is making the parent responsible
| if their children get access to bad websites or apps. But
| as I said is not 100% perfect.
|
| But I agree that you should not give your child a device
| and at teh same time demand the government to do your job
| for you.
| michaelmior wrote:
| > How would this work? Who's going to set up the taxonomy /
| classification tree for every domain/site on the internet
| just so a guardian can say "yes to drugs, no to porn, no to
| news, no to weapons..."?
|
| This isn't really an answer, but the same problem exists with
| current age verification laws. I think the main difference
| with traditional parental control software is that the burden
| would be on the site maintainer to accurately report the
| appropriateness of their content. If not, they would be
| legally liable. Of course this introduces the problem that
| foreign entities not subject to the law are effectively
| exempt from the requirement.
| stvltvs wrote:
| Have browsers default block anything that doesn't label
| their content (allow this setting to be disabled and locked
| down in parental controls), then hold websites liable for
| willfully or negligently mislabeling. Exceptions for good
| faith efforts to label correctly. Maybe a special label for
| user generated content that holds companies a bit less
| liable for it.
| michaelmior wrote:
| > Have browsers default block anything that doesn't label
| their content
|
| This doesn't solve the case for entities not subject to
| this law. They can just label their content as totally
| safe and not have to worry about penalties.
| evil-olive wrote:
| > Have browsers default block anything that doesn't label
| their content
|
| "have" is a bit ambiguous here. I assume you actually
| mean " _have the government require_ "?
|
| in other words, if I develop a browser, I could be fined
| or thrown in jail for not implementing your "default to
| blocking anything unlabeled" strategy?
|
| since implementing a browser is a vast undertaking, what
| about if I maintained a fork of Chromium or Firefox that
| simply disabled that check?
|
| we had this exact same debate 20ish years ago [0] except
| it was about the specter of TV piracy and file-sharing.
| the proposed solution was the same, though - require
| software that could be used for piracy to incorporate a
| specific check, and make it illegal to distribute
| software without that check. it was a terrible idea then,
| and remains a terrible idea now.
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > Exceptions for good faith efforts to label correctly.
| Maybe a special label for user generated content that
| holds companies a bit less liable for it.
|
| We already have CDA/230
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > I think the main difference with traditional parental
| control software is that the burden would be on the site
| maintainer to accurately report the appropriateness of
| their content.
|
| What would reddit.com do?
|
| > If not, they would be legally liable.
|
| We already have CDA/230.
|
| > Of course this introduces the problem that foreign
| entities not subject to the law are effectively exempt from
| the requirement.
|
| And so this whole endeavor was just defeated with free
| trial to any of the _many_ VPN services out there. Even a
| genuinely incurious person will eventually trip over a
| free/cheap VPN offer just browsing youtube.
| michaelmior wrote:
| I would think that that CDA/230 would probably have to
| amended if such a new law were to make any sense.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| I'd say the real issue is that it's difficult to outsource
| parenting to government agencies without some collateral
| damage
| notatoad wrote:
| i think it would be reasonable to legally require websites to
| classify themselves.
|
| if it's illegal to show porn to minors, all a website should
| have to do to comply with the law is to send a header saying
| "this is porn" and leave it up to the browser to decide
| whether or not the human using the browser can see it or not.
| squigz wrote:
| > Who's going to set up the taxonomy / classification tree
| for every domain/site
|
| I would think adblock lists are a pretty good example of
| similar efforts (that is, people classifying large amounts of
| random sites), so I don't think that would be impossible.
|
| Such things don't need to be perfect, either - just good
| enough.
|
| (I don't agree with age verification efforts or even parental
| control software; just pointing out it's not impossible)
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > so I don't think that would be impossible.
|
| Ok, what bucket(s) does reddit fall into?
|
| > Such things don't need to be perfect, either - just good
| enough.
|
| I think we disagree about how "good" this effort will be
| given that it's a supremely subjective task. Your porn is
| my sexual education and wellness material...
|
| And if it's going to be down to individual parents to make
| the most appropriate choice for their kids, this whole
| thing is just regular parenting but with extra steps.
| squigz wrote:
| > Ok, what bucket(s) does reddit fall into?
|
| Well probably various. What is your point?
|
| > it's a supremely subjective task
|
| Yes, but this is beside my point. It can be good enough
| to meet people's subjective needs. All I meant was,
| solutions like this don't need to perfectly categorize
| every single site on the Internet to be good enough to be
| useful, for those who think such things are useful.
| Terr_ wrote:
| I wouldn't say _every_ browser, but the correct place for the
| policy is on the device of the parent who is demanding the
| special feature. Sites ' obligations should be limited to basic
| disclosure of "this site might contain X" metadata.
|
| Benefits:
|
| 1. Orwellian abuse: No creepy-ass super-abuseable government
| panopticon knowing every goddamn service you've ever made an
| account on, with the ability to arbitrarily revoke them and/or
| block new ones.
|
| 2. Costs: The majority of the costs of creating and maintaining
| the system fall upon the people who actually use it and want it
| to exist, rather than a bunch of other adults across the globe.
|
| 3. Parent focus: Most enforcement exists in a physical realm
| where parents/guardians at least have a _chance_ of
| understanding, monitoring, and managing it. "Little Timmy is
| using Daddy's phone" can be determined instantly at a glance.
|
| 4. Exceptions: If the child has some health-class homework and
| can't access the right Wikipedia pages anymore, the parent can
| easily grant exceptions and revoke them.
|
| 5. If someone's religion says that unclad ankles are smut, then
| their church can create their own site-rating-site and
| adherents configure their family's devices to it.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| What if a site doesn't comply or lies? Who is enforcing this
| barnabee wrote:
| Age verification should be baked into the parenting.
|
| It's about the only place it might have the intended effect
| anyway, and has the advantage of not enabling mass
| surveillance.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| Why
| butlike wrote:
| Kids have nothing but time and energy to learn about their
| world, so you get weird things like the children rootkitting
| your device or "the home computer" on their quest to see
| salacious corners of the web.
|
| As always, parenting starts and stops with the parent. The
| internet should be open and if the child sees something that
| upsets them (or makes them question one of their assumptions),
| it's the parent's responsibility to cultivate an environment
| where the child feels comfortable talking about it with them.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| I learned that the password my parents used on the computer
| was "Neo Maxi Zoom Dwebie" by password cracking my windows XP
| with rainbow tables at like age 11.
|
| I hate the breakfast club and think it's one of the examples
| of movies which idolized anti-intellectualism and basically
| celebrates bullying nerdy types. Sadly ironic of a password
| choices from my "nerdy" family.
|
| If the rainbow tables didn't work, I'd have rootkitted/RATed
| the computer.
| genewitch wrote:
| And who decides what browsers are okay? Is it Apple and Google?
| bobthepanda wrote:
| While I don't support age verification (I don't think that would
| solve anything) two of the targeted product categories, skincare
| and diet foods/supplements, are some of the heaviest spending ad
| categories I see nowadays, and feel very huckster-y as well.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| The answer isn't age verification but putting them under the
| scrutiny of the FDA. Supplements have almost no regulation and
| will soon actually have none since the head of the FDA is a big
| fan of supplements and has a supplement company. Supplements
| being regulated would fix so many issues in this space.
| saurik wrote:
| This should be held up as a visceral demonstration of how the
| "slippery slope" isn't inherently a fallacy, as many oft like to
| claim: it is merely a form of argument that is easy enough to get
| wrong--leading to a fallacy when the cause is disconnected--that
| people have become overly-wary of it, reacting to the premise of
| the conclusion without even bothering to analyze how steep the
| slope might be before tuning the idea out :(.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Exactly. It's a fallacy when dealing with logical entities, but
| humans aren't logical entities.
| ls612 wrote:
| It's only a fallacy when dealing with logical relations under
| certainty. Once uncertainty and probability is introduced the
| slippery slope just is relating Bayes' Rule in plain English.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Whatever. Point being, calling it a "fallacy" isn't useful
| or predictive when dealing with people who follow impulses
| rather than principles.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It's only a fallacy when dealing with logical relations
| under certainty.
|
| Incorrect. Slippery slope is an informal fallacy, which
| applies to arguments based on evidence not logical
| relations under certainty. But it is a component of the
| slippery slope fallacy that the implicit premise (that the
| precondition that is the subject of the argument is likely
| to lead to the result that is the endpoint of the slippery
| slope) is inadequately justified, not merely that a slope
| from the precondition to the endpoint is presented.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| But laws are not human only made by humans and should be
| logical
| nkozyra wrote:
| If you look at it less as "if A then B" and more like "if A
| then possibly B" as it's usually intended then I think you can
| strip the fallacy.
|
| Almost anything is possible, but even in this case it was never
| inevitable or inherently true that age verification for X meant
| age verification for Y. Which means the value - if any - for a
| slippery slope argument is "consider the possibilities X might
| open up"
| II2II wrote:
| It depends upon what Y is. If X and Y require age
| verification for in-person purchases _and_ age verification
| is required to purchase X online, it is reasonable to assume
| that age verification for Y will follow. Some may call that a
| slippery slope. In reality it is simply a loophole in the
| law. Either way, it is reasonable to assume there is a bottom
| to that slope. It is not reasonable to assume that X opens up
| all possibilities.
|
| That said, I understand where the EFF is coming from. Data
| collection and "sharing" is rampant these days. Any
| meaningful form of age verification opens up the potential
| for abuse. What I don't understand is their failure to
| address how to handle restricted goods.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| IMO slippery slope is a fallacy when the small step only
| supports the big step symbolically, shifting the "Overton
| Window". It's true that the Overton Window has some effect, but
| we shouldn't avoid taking a step towards the middle just
| because it's also a step towards the opposite bad side, if the
| middle is good.
|
| Wrt. privacy, the real issue is that the small step helps the
| big step not just symbolically. ID-based age-verification, even
| when used for good reasons, gives the state and government
| access to its people's history of age-restricted content. If
| this government decides to, say, prosecute anyone who
| viewed/bought/consumed (inane) X, it's far easier vs. a
| government that doesn't have age-verification. Both governments
| face major opposition, but the latter government's opposition
| is more effective, because the former's has already shared
| their history.
|
| One thing the article doesn't state but implies, that I don't
| agree with, is: the slippery slope is still a fallacy, when a
| government first decides to age-gate reasonable X (e.g. porn)
| then unreasonable Y (e.g. history books). Because said
| government will receive almost as much opposition and people
| doing work-arounds for Y, as if they went straight to age-
| gating Y; although not _exactly_ as much, I generally assume
| (and hope) the difference doesn 't outweigh the benefits of
| "stepping towards the middle". In the article, X is porn, and Y
| is facial cream, dating apps, and diet pills. But these things
| arguably should be age-gated; and even the article's talking
| points are not that these are OK for children, but that gating
| them gives the government data on more people (which is a real
| slippery-slope, not a fallacy, as explained in the above
| paragraph), specifically people who don't watch porn (perhaps
| some of the readers don't mind porn viewers being monitored
| because they aren't one of them). If states were to actually
| start age-gating history books, I guarantee there would be
| serious opposition, including from people who are completely
| fine with age-gating porn.
| miki123211 wrote:
| IMO the problem isn't ID-based age verification specifically,
| it's that such verification is usually impelemnted in a way
| where the service in question gets a lot more data than they
| need, with no real control over how that data is kept and
| processed.
|
| It would absolutely be possible to implement that stuff in a
| fully privacy-preserving way, with nothing but basic
| cryptography, and the government could absolutely enforce
| that implementation.
|
| Nobody is actually interested in promoting that though, the
| anti-big-tech crowd just wants verification no matter what,
| and the pro-privacy crowd just wants something to get angry
| about. Nobody is looking for a reasonable compromise here.
| devilbunny wrote:
| Yeah, the whole "we have to scan your driver's license"
| which has my name, address, etc., encoded is _way_ more
| than I want to share. I am mostly bald and even my beard is
| gray. There is no plausible situation where you think I
| might be under 21.
| genewitch wrote:
| I've been gray for over a decade and get carded every
| time, because my state tries to enforce age restrictions.
|
| Minors don't seem to have much of a problem, though?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > It would absolutely be possible to implement that stuff
| in a fully privacy-preserving way, with nothing but basic
| cryptography, and the government could absolutely enforce
| that implementation.
|
| There are ways to do this which are _less bad_ , but there
| is no way to do it "in a fully privacy-preserving way"
| without also making it fully ineffective, because if there
| is no way to prove who someone is then there is no way to
| catch anyone providing false age verification as a service
| to minors. But if there a way to prove that, you've
| demonstrated the existence of a privacy failure because you
| could then use the same mechanism to determine what someone
| is looking at.
| consteval wrote:
| You can verify who someone is without knowing
| specifically who "who" refers to. We do it all the time.
| I give a one-time code to service X and it knows I am who
| I say I am, but the code I gave is virtually worthless
| information. All it knows is that I have credentials, and
| I am the authorized person to have those credentials
| because I have physical access to some device, unknown,
| which is known to belong to said person.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| You're omitting the part where you have to disclose who
| you are to the party issuing the credential. If they
| issue you a unique credential while knowing your identity
| then they can trace back all your uses of it to your
| identity. When that party is the government or within the
| government's jurisdiction, the government has the
| capacity to do that even if the services where you use
| the credential are operated by a third party, so you very
| much haven't solved the privacy problem.
|
| The only way to actually solve it is to make the
| credential non-unique, i.e. issue the same one to
| everybody so they're fully indistinguishable. That _does_
| solve the privacy problem, but then you have the "who is
| telling the kids the secret password" problem.
| tzs wrote:
| The party that you must disclose your identity to doesn't
| necessarily need to see the credential you will present
| to the party you wish to demonstrate your age to.
|
| A blind signature could be used to have the ID checking
| party sign the credential without seeing it.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| That's just introducing a complex new vector for
| compromise without getting out of the dichotomy.
|
| Option 1: Bob gets a credential that can be traced back
| to Bob; privacy fail.
|
| Option 2: Bob gets a credential that cannot be traced
| back to Bob, shares it with everyone; defeats the system.
|
| Notice also the tradeoff you're forcing for no benefit.
| If Bob has a _unique_ blinded signature, even if the
| signer doesn 't know the unblinded value, the verifier
| would and so Bob has to get a new signature for each use
| or the verifiers could correlate one use with another.
| But needing a new signature for each use creates a timing
| attack because now you can see that every time "someone"
| presents a signature to use a particular service, Bob had
| just requested a new signature.
|
| In this context blinded signatures have only costs and no
| benefits over universal shared passwords.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| > It would absolutely be possible to implement that stuff
| in a fully privacy-preserving way, with nothing but basic
| cryptography, and the government could absolutely enforce
| that implementation.
|
| Yeah, it seems like it would not be as much of a problem if
| you were able to have assurances that your data isn't being
| held onto. If I give my ID to a bouncer at a strip club, he
| isn't able to scan it and put it into a digital file. He
| just looks at it*, goes "yep this guy is of age", and gives
| it back. If we ensured a similar data flow for the
| Internet, then it wouldn't be nearly as much of a privacy
| issue.
|
| *These days I doubt I would even get carded as well.
| Getting older and all that. IDK how you could implement a
| similar check for the Internet though.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| > It would absolutely be possible to implement that stuff
| in a fully privacy-preserving way, with nothing but basic
| cryptography, and the government could absolutely enforce
| that implementation.
|
| What are some implementation(s)?
|
| Different implementations vary in effectiveness. Anyone can
| give a minor access to their device, or a minor can steal
| their device. So in order to prevent access then, you'd
| need something like constant face monitoring (via a local
| model, possible to do anonymously, but expensive and
| fallible), or legal threats (impossible to do anonymously,
| because you must track the adult who gave their kid access;
| and many people are dumb with technology even when it
| matters, so you either have to fine or jail many people or
| selectively enforce).
|
| The easiest implementation I can think, which I'd
| recommend, is to make locked-down kid devices, require ID
| or even just a credit card (18+) to purchase a normal
| device, put the burden on adults to not share their device
| with kids, and only police merchants (for selling normal
| devices without ID) and websites (for serving adult content
| without blocking kid devices). Like what we do with
| alcohol, except not even trying to police people for
| sharing, because it would be ineffective and messy. Like
| alcohol, many kids will get access anyways, although less
| than now.
|
| I like this approach because, IMO importantly, kids who
| don't try to see adult content will be far less likely to,
| and parents who try to restrict their kids from adult
| content will be far more successful. I don't think you can
| stop determined kids with neglectful parents without
| drawbacks.
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| They no longer teach Rhetoric at schools. Rhetorical arguments
| have been completely forgotten and debased in the public mind.
|
| Rhetorical arguments are more important than ever in the age of
| AI, because AI is our attempt to simulate that. Probabilistic
| AI mimics rhetoric (inexpertly). It uses past knowledge to
| predict future behavior (rather, just the next token) based on
| probability.
|
| To be clear - I'm not arguing that logical argument aren't
| important; I am a logical person, and prefer logical arguments
| to rhetorical ones. I prefer the certainty. I still recognize
| the need for rhetoric. Not everything is certain, and you have
| to make decisions based on probabilities and unknowns.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| If you saw what modern formal debate looked like in America,
| you'd be happy that we abandoned teaching it.
|
| Here's the beginning of the rabbit hole you need to go down
| to understand why so many former debaters not only hate the
| activity but specifically cite it as an example of post-
| modern neo Marxism:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreading_(debate)
| hot_gril wrote:
| Also why "ad hominem" can be legit. Lawmakers' personal beliefs
| and incentives say a lot more than whatever generic arguments
| they pick.
| BrawnyBadger53 wrote:
| This is less true, slippery slope as a fallacy is having
| large unclear jumps chained together to make a really
| improbable outcome because each improbable chain scales off
| all the previous pieces. But ad hominem as an argument is
| only really valid when the attack against the person is
| highlighting conflicts of interest, which is more reason for
| scrutiny of the original argument than it is cause for
| ignoring it entirely. You should still attack the argument
| itself.
| hot_gril wrote:
| That's what the opponent wants you to do. The law by itself
| looks ok, but you're dealing with limited information,
| mainly not knowing how they're going to use it next.
| hiAndrewQuinn wrote:
| Ad hominem is a weird one where the more abstract the
| argument, the less it applies, but the more concrete and
| visceral it is the better it is as a first-pass filter.
|
| Like, think of the worst guy you know. Now think of what that
| guy thinks about the state of the world, in as concrete
| detail as you can. That's probably a pretty good reason in
| itself not to think that, because if you think like that for
| too long, you risk becoming that guy yourself.
|
| This feels like it should work far less often than it
| actually does.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| The slippery slope fallacy is not just the argument style, it
| is when the argument style is used by the event being held up
| as a cause is not justifiably believed to be likely to lead to
| the cited effect. (It is an informal fallacy, rather than a
| deductive fallacy, and, as such, requires evaluation of
| evidence, not mere shape of the argument.)
|
| Also, neither deductive nor informal fallacies mean that the
| conclusion of an argument is _wrong_ , in any case, so the
| conclusion of an argument being right does not disprove (or
| even provide strong counterevidence) that the argument
| contained a fallacy. Fallacies are about whether and to what
| degree a conclusion is supported by the reasoning (and
| evidence, in the case of informal fallacies) offered to support
| it, not about whether or not it is true.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| If we do X, Y becomes more likely. Y is bad, making a bad
| thing more likely is bad, therefore doing X has a bad
| consequence.
|
| That isn't a fallacy at all, it's just an argument that
| requires you to establish its premises, like all sound
| arguments. People call it a fallacy as a pejorative when they
| want to dismiss the legitimate concern and shut down the
| debate even in the cases where the premise is correct.
| yellowapple wrote:
| Exactly. It ain't a fallacy to call out the folks actively
| greasing down the slope.
| Y_Y wrote:
| Grease down a slope, and you'll slide for a day
|
| Grease down your self, and you'll slide for a lifetime
| valicord wrote:
| Haven't checked the others, but at least for the skin cream bill,
| the text explicitly lists "a date of birth entry or checkbox
| verifying age system" as sufficient, so the outrage about privacy
| seems overblown.
|
| Of course this raises questions as to what is the point of
| requiring verification that doesn't actually verify anything, but
| that's an entirely separate problem.
| valicord wrote:
| Likewise the dietary pills bill only requires the ID to be
| verified either at a retail point of sale or when the online
| purchase is delivered, so there doesn't seem to be any invasive
| data collection required.
|
| To be clear: I'm strongly against any laws that require
| uploading government ID to sketchy websites, but at least 2 out
| of the 3 examples listed are not this.
| Teever wrote:
| What's the point of anytl of this though?
|
| Like what public interest is served by having a date of birth
| entry or a checkbox for 'verifying' age?
|
| To me it serves no public interest as it's functionally useless
| and it will only serve as a thin end of a wedge to normalize
| more egregious requirements.
| valicord wrote:
| Oh, I agree, it seems completely useless as written. I'm just
| saying that it's no more of a privacy violation than Steam
| asking for your birth date (which somehow happens to be
| January 1st, 1900 for a shocking percentage of the
| population) to watch a video game trailer. I assume the point
| is virtue signaling.
| evil-olive wrote:
| > Haven't checked the others, but at least for the skin cream
| bill
|
| if you did check the other two, you'd notice that they're much
| more restrictive.
|
| from the NY bill, apologies for the all-caps but it's in the
| original [0]:
|
| > "IDENTITY VERIFICATION" SHALL MEAN THE USE OF AN ON-DEMAND
| SELF-PHOTOGRAPH TO VERIFY THE OWNERSHIP OF A PERSON'S
| GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION;
|
| > "LICENSE VERIFICATION" SHALL MEAN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO
| VERIFY A PERSON'S GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION;
|
| and the one in WA [1]:
|
| > For the purposes of this section, proof of legal age includes
| any of the following officially issued identification that
| shows the purchaser's age and bears the purchaser's signature
| and photograph:
|
| 0: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A3323
|
| 1 (PDF):
| https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Se...
| valicord wrote:
| I did check the others later, the WA bill only requires IRL
| verification, same as purchasing alcohol, so it also doesn't
| really fit the theme of the article either.
|
| 2/3 examples being heavily exaggerated is a pretty bad look
| for the author (even though I agree with the article
| sentiment in general).
| pakitan wrote:
| One could argue it's the first step of the slippery slope
| process. First you introduce a checkbox as a "non-intrusive
| way" to for age verification, knowing full well it's useless.
| Next step is you say "Ok, we clearly agree there is a need for
| age verification, we all voted for the checkbox but kids are
| lying so we must put into place a system that cannot be gamed.
| Think of the children!"
| drdaeman wrote:
| If we don't trust the legislative and see them as malevolent
| entities with their own agendas unaligned with those of their
| constituents, then, yes, a checkbox opens a path for further
| abuse.
|
| If we trust the legislative to have a modicum of common sense
| and don't try to invent a technical solution to a non-
| technical problem, then a warning "what you're going to see
| is not for the younger audiences" might be a reasonable
| compromise.
|
| And it's a shame we live in a world where the former doesn't
| sound completely nuts.
| plasma_beam wrote:
| Am I missing something here? Entirely possible and likely. When I
| go to pornhub I have to click a button that days I'm 18. Some
| other sites I've seen actually make me enter a birthdate.
| Slightly more annoying but I always make one up. Is this what
| people are upset about? I get actual age verification with an
| account required or checking my ID is more invasive..but I guess
| I've not experienced this as an actual problem yet.
| mandevil wrote:
| This is about a Texas Law that went before the Supreme Court
| recently.
|
| Texas' law, H.B. 1181, requires people visiting porn websites
| to prove their age by either uploading government-issued
| identification or a "commercially reasonable method" such as
| bank information. More than a dozen other states have passed
| similar bills, though they are all on hold pending what the
| Supreme Court decides.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| There's just too much money to be made selling porn to
| children.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| No, there isn't. Almost all porn that is accessible to
| children is on freely available social media like instagram
| and twitter. Not on Pornhub.
| twiclo wrote:
| Are you saying kids don't go to pornhub?
| 9283409232 wrote:
| No I'm not.
| RDaneel0livaw wrote:
| I live in a state where they have banned all porn sites
| entirely. If I try to go to pornhub there's a statement from
| the company saying I can't access it at all. Period. It's
| beyond absurd into the realm of comedy levels of incompetence
| from the gov.
| ryandvm wrote:
| Certain US states are requiring the porn sites actually do
| rigorous age verification via scanned documents. I believe
| PornHub just opted to stay out of those states entirely hoping
| that their "reverse boycott" would cause enough of a backlash
| to get the laws changed. I'm not sure it's working.
|
| That said, as a parent to teenagers, I don't know that I
| believe that age verification is such a terrible idea. The
| reality is that there's a lot of fucked up porn out there and
| blocking it effectively across all networks and every device is
| non-trivial. I understand this is a minority viewpoint on HN.
|
| Of course I have absolutely no interest in uploading scans of
| my drivers license to porn sites so I don't know what the right
| answer is. I'm sure there's some cryptographic scheme whereby a
| 3rd party could verify my identity without knowing for what
| purpose and then the porn sites could validate that
| verification without disclosing who or what I'm doing. I dunno.
| jay-barronville wrote:
| > That said, as a parent to teenagers, I don't know that I
| believe that age verification is such a terrible idea. The
| reality is that there's a lot of fucked up porn out there and
| blocking it effectively across all networks and every device
| is non-trivial. I understand this is a minority viewpoint on
| HN.
|
| I agree with you. I'm very pro-privacy/anti-surveillance and
| pro-freedom, so I'm entirely against the invasive ID-based
| systems, but the problem you highlight is pretty real and has
| to be addressed somehow, and I'm just not sure what the
| solution is.
|
| As a parent of very young children, I'd hope that we've
| already figured this out by the time my children are
| teenagers.
|
| Also, I doubt your viewpoint is actually a minority viewpoint
| here--it's more likely those with your viewpoint just won't
| post it here.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| > I agree with you. I'm very pro-privacy/anti-surveillance
| and pro-freedom, so I'm entirely against the invasive ID-
| based systems, but the problem you highlight is pretty real
| and has to be addressed somehow, and I'm just not sure what
| the solution is.
|
| The solution is client-side filtering/blocking software on
| the machines you own. And if your response is "but that's
| _hard_ ", that should _in_ crease your confidence that
| server-side filtering and verification are unacceptable. If
| even tech-savvy people can't get verification working on a
| local device-- which has the full, correct context who is
| using it and what should be blocked-- then certainly it's
| not going to get any better by mandating a solution at
| scale on the public Internet, where there is much less
| context about the individual user, credentials can be
| mocked, proxies can be used, and so on.
| mandevil wrote:
| "Hoping that technology can magically solve this without
| destroying privacy" seems to be where the Supreme Court is
| heading, at least that was what observers thought after
| watching the Court's hearing on the Texas bill a few weeks
| ago.
|
| Which is one reason that the EFF is trying to lay down their
| argument that the technology won't work.
| twiclo wrote:
| "Of course I have absolutely no interest in uploading scans
| of my drivers license to porn sites"
|
| Would you be okay uploading your ID to online gambling sites?
| evil-olive wrote:
| your confusion is understandable, because "age verification"
| can mean anything from "check the box that says you're 18" to
| "upload a picture of the front and back of your driver's
| license".
|
| > When I go to pornhub I have to click a button that days I'm
| 18.
|
| if you were in Texas, it'd be not reachable at all [0]. this is
| due to a bill [1] that would have required Pornhub to use the
| more intrusive age-verification options. it also allows for
| significant fines for non-compliance. if a 16 year old kid used
| their 19 year old brother's ID to get through the verification,
| Pornhub could potentially be liable for up to $250k. and the
| broadest reading of that bill would mean that quarter-million
| fine applies _every time_ a minor bypassed the age-verification
| check.
|
| 0: https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/14/texas-pornhub-5th-
| ci...
|
| 1:
| https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01181F...
| ndriscoll wrote:
| That fine applies if they don't have a system at all, not for
| scenarios like you posted.
| genewitch wrote:
| And who decides if the solution is, you know, appropriate
| and all that's required and not just half-assing it? Is it
| something where they would have to get fined $250,000 and
| then go fight it in court?
| evil-olive wrote:
| > That fine applies if they don't have a system at all
|
| no, that's not accurate. quoting from the bill:
|
| > A civil penalty imposed under this section for a
| violation of Section 129B.002 or 129B.003 may be in an
| amount equal to not more than the total, if applicable, of:
|
| > (1) $10,000 per day that the entity operates an Internet
| website in violation of the age verification requirements
| of this chapter;
|
| > (2) $10,000 per instance when the entity retains
| identifying information in violation of Section
| 129B.002(b); and
|
| > (3) if, because of the entity's violation of the age
| verification requirements of this chapter, one or more
| minors accesses sexual material harmful to minors, an
| additional amount of not more than $250,000.
|
| if they don't have a system for age verification, the
| possible fine is $10k per day. run a website for a year,
| and _then_ the Texas AG gets around to filing a suit
| against you? that 's a possible 3.65 million fine.
|
| the possible $250k is on top of that, if minors access porn
| on such a website.
|
| crucially, the law says the age-verification system used
| must be "reasonable" which gives prosecutors a significant
| amount of leeway. does your porn site use Honest Achmed's
| Age Verification Service? if that is easy to bypass,
| there's nothing stopping them from arguing in court that
| you may have implemented age-verification, but you didn't
| comply with the law because you didn't use a _reasonable_
| verification service.
| weaksauce wrote:
| to buy vape products online in california you have to submit
| your id to a third party id verification service. that's
| incredibly intrusive and could be where these laws go.
| genewitch wrote:
| Find a VPN with an exit in Texas, Louisiana, or Utah, to name
| three off the top of my head.
|
| Louisiana, AFAIK Does not require age verification, but all of
| our traffic goes to Dallas, so we get lumped in with Texas.
| AtNightWeCode wrote:
| Preteen girls using peeling skin cream is a thing where I live.
| It causes skin damage. Tiktok bs.
| weaksauce wrote:
| ok but the solution should be "parent better" vs. "legislate
| our privacy away"
| quickthrowman wrote:
| How is a preteen girl ordering products from a website?
| fortran77 wrote:
| Parents can choose to restrict their kids internet access. That's
| the best way of handling this.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| The Internet is so ubiquitous and intertwined in daily life
| that that's impossible and you know it.
| michaelmior wrote:
| I don't think the parent comment was suggesting disallowing
| access to the Internet entirely, but restricting the content
| that is accessible. Accessing pornographic material is
| obviously not a necessity for kids. That said, kids of course
| do often find a way around any blocks or filters put in
| place.
| Lanolderen wrote:
| Never underestimate being horny, curious and having copious
| amounts of free time. Having to go through hoops does make
| it clear you shouldn't be looking at it though.
| natebc wrote:
| And "porn" (or anything you might want your children not to
| see?) is also ubiquitous and so intertwined with the internet
| that it's impossible to block ... and you also know it.
|
| Responsibility really is the only fix here. I know we love
| technical solutions to problems but either porn is illegal
| for everyone or it isn't.
| immibis wrote:
| "Parental responsibility" is to parenting what "pilot
| error" was to plane crashes: a thought-terminating cliche
| that refuses to dig any deeper.
|
| When they stopped blaming crashes on "pilot error" they
| were able to properly investigate the causes of crashes and
| prevent more crashes.
|
| "Pilot error" is a suitable explanation if you are a
| mechanic investigating the crash. You determined that the
| plane moved the wrong way because the ailerons moved the
| wrong way because the pilot told them to move that way.
| It's not a suitable explanation for a final report because
| you need to find out why the pilot told them to move that
| way.
|
| Codeless Code 224
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| For kids?
| rickandmortyy wrote:
| lmao it's hilarious when free folk talk about surveillance like
| cars on road aren't collecting data
| mjevans wrote:
| The Internet should be Unrated and thus Adults Only by default.
| Just like public spaces. (Would you allow an 8 year old to wander
| New York City unattended? Arguments can be made for more
| controlled spaces but...)
|
| Have a website and want the chance for kids to see it? Advertise
| in the headers that it's moderated and intended to be a given
| rating. Various indexers can pick that up. Complaints can be
| forward to relevant government agencies (E.G. for a US based
| website the FTC, false advertising), or as usual other agencies
| for harder crimes.
|
| Parents can mark computer accounts as Child accounts and Browsers
| configured to follow a set of list filtering rules selected by
| the parent or current guardian (E.G. schools).
|
| So again. Internet == Unrated Free Zone -- Child Mode == Allow
| List filtered content.
| paulvnickerson wrote:
| we arrest people who have sex in public...
| mjevans wrote:
| Only the ones who make a display of it (get seen by others).
|
| We don't randomly go around asking Papers Please! to everyone
| on the street.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| We do require ID to enter e.g. porn stores and bars though,
| or to make age restricted purchases.
|
| I also recall walking a few miles to e.g. the mall, target,
| walmart, etc. without any adults when I was around 10. I'm
| not sure I'd characterize public spaces as adult oriented
| by default.
| choo-t wrote:
| > We do require ID to enter e.g. porn stores and bars
| though
|
| Only if you look too young (and for the bars it's only
| for certain beverages), so the affected population is
| only a small parts of the customers.
| ysofunny wrote:
| ...not yet... (and I hope, not ever)
| inetknght wrote:
| Maybe we shouldn't.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > we arrest people who have sex in public...
|
| Live sex shows are illegal in most places in the US
| regardless of whether the audience is exclusively adults, so
| the motivation for these laws is apparently something other
| than preventing children from seeing them.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Would you allow an 8 year old to wander New York City
| unattended?
|
| At age 8 I was wandering in Munich unattended.
|
| But okay, gotta admit, this is Germany we're talking about, so
| not many issues with hordes of mentally ill and/or homeless
| people doing anything from drugs to defecating on the sidewalk
| right next to big tech's offices [1].
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/18/san-
| fr...
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| If your politicians back then had wanted to cultivate your
| fear badly enough, they'd easily have been able to find
| anecdotes or instances to scare you with.
| Juliate wrote:
| Not _everything_ is in the hands of politicians.
| Communities, medias have a significant role too, where they
| can shame politicians trying stupid takes to shape the
| reality to their wishes.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| >homeless people doing anything from drugs to defecating on
| the sidewalk right next to big tech's offices
|
| And this harms people how?
| qball wrote:
| Littering degrades the commons.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| In rural areas animals shit all over farms and areas
| where people exist and commingle
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Rural fields, like restrooms, are a designated place. If
| your horse defecates on the sidewalk in the city you're
| expected to clean it up.
| brookst wrote:
| People stand up and scream and wave their arms at
| sporting events all the time, but it is frowned upon in
| airplanes.
|
| context matters.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| The problem with the drug addicts is that, well, they are
| on drugs and behave completely irrationally. Stoners are
| harmless but cocaine, meth and alcohol are prone to cause
| aggression and fights.
| Jolter wrote:
| I nearly stepped in human feces in the street in Cologne.
| Happened to walk down the wrong alley which the homeless were
| using as a toilet.
|
| I'm sure someone came along later to clean up but this was
| early morning. My point is let's not pretend like Germany
| doesn't have homelessness and people sleeping rough.
|
| They generally are quite harmless though and not generally
| any threat to wandering children.
| kennysoona wrote:
| > The Internet should be Unrated and thus Adults Only by
| default.
|
| As much as I kind of agree, I want to fight so much for open
| access to the internet because it was so useful to me as a
| child, thirsty for information and starving for nourishment.
|
| I will say I think these laws are bonkers. Restrict what
| companies can do with child data, make it clear an account is a
| minors, that should be more than sufficient.
| haswell wrote:
| > _I want to fight so much for open access to the internet
| because it was so useful to me as a child_
|
| As a child of the 80s who benefited greatly from the Internet
| as a kid (repressive religious parents, and the Internet was
| a lifeline), I feel extremely conflicted.
|
| On the one hand, I absolutely want to preserve the kind of
| benefit we received growing up. On the other, the Internet
| looks nothing like it did when I was a kid.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The dangers of the modern internet aren't boobs though. The
| 20th century internet had boobs. The modern dangers are
| state-funded and international they're not going to be
| thwarted by an age-verification law, are they?
| haswell wrote:
| > _The 20th century internet had boobs_
|
| Porn on the Internet today isn't like it was either.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| There is more of it now, certainly. Is it worse than
| goatse?
| eszed wrote:
| Goatse was shock, not porn. Kid sees that, gets mildly
| traumatized and figures it out later and laughs about it
| when they're an adult. I'm far more worried about them
| internalizing mysogyny from mainstream porn; that shit
| sinks deep.
| haswell wrote:
| More of it yes, but the themes and extremes have been
| shifting over the years as well, with family fantasies
| and misogyny/sexual violence becoming increasingly
| prevalent.
|
| This was actually on the front page recently [0], and
| while I'm no prude, I do think it's worth taking the
| trends in porn seriously when comparing the old Internet
| to the current day.
|
| - [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43196585
| dijit wrote:
| Oh, I vehemently disagree.
|
| The platforms that are popular today (Pornhub, XHamster
| etc;) have restrictions on what they will publish,
| pornhub in particular has cracked down hard on
| pornography that does not have a chain of custody.
|
| Rape fantasy and domination kinks are more difficult to
| find than when I was a kid, you don't stumble upon it.
|
| If you are a kid looking for boobs the most likely place
| you wind up is Pornhub or xhamster too.
|
| The internet when I was a kid was more like efukt except
| _even less_ moderated.
|
| As for misogyny, it's hard to discuss because everyone
| has a slightly different definition - even in extreme
| cases that some people think _sex itself_ is misogyny: ht
| tps://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/505061
| 3...
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Then you have a different problem.
|
| Suppose you have some content that depicts healthy and
| loving relationships, but is also sexually explicit. The
| prudes are going to want that inside the porn filter
| along with the rest of it, even though it's something
| that does the _opposite_ of what you 're concerned about.
|
| Meanwhile, insert "watch it for the plot" joke, because
| we all know that kind of content gets produced when the
| goal is to appeal to the prurient interest without
| allocating a lot of budget to writers. But that's
| actually the problem. Age gates and things are friction.
| Suppose you want to create something _good_ that appeals
| to a mass audience because it 's thoughtful, but it's
| also sexually explicit. As soon as you put it behind the
| wall you lose the large majority of the audience, not
| because they're minors but because they're adults not
| willing to swipe their ID in order to watch "porn",
| whether out of the assumption that anything with that tag
| on the gate is inherently immoral or concern that someone
| else would assume that if anyone found out they were
| watching it.
|
| And then the _wholesome_ and _salutary_ stuff doesn 't
| get produced. You'll notice that such content is
| uncommon, because it's effectively banned in most of the
| places with even moderate production values. You can't
| put it on broadcast TV, "porn" is banned wholesale on
| YouTube, corporations the likes of Disney would generally
| be skittish about producing it etc. You'll occasionally
| get something like that on HBO or Netflix but even then
| the incentive to produce it is lower because they
| wouldn't be able to license it to as many other places.
|
| Which means the main place it gets created is in places
| like the old Tumblr before the prudes killed it. But
| killing Tumblr doesn't get rid of porn, it just lowers
| the quality of it, where "lower quality" is more rather
| than less misogynistic and insalubrious.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| I don't disagree that porn shapes our sexual behaviour.
| But I don't think it's a bad thing. Sex is a behaviour
| that's sensitive to fashion and tradition just like food,
| dance and social norms are.
|
| If people do more extreme things and they enjoy it then
| why not? As long as it's fully consensual and of adult
| age it's only great when people get to explore their
| sexuality.
| verisimi wrote:
| > The modern dangers are state-funded and international
| they're not going to be thwarted by an age-verification
| law, are they?
|
| As they write the laws, and mostly people follow them,
| no, they will not be thwarted.
| LoganDark wrote:
| > On the one hand, I absolutely want to preserve the kind
| of benefit we received growing up. On the other, the
| Internet looks nothing like it did when I was a kid.
|
| This is how I feel, too. Nothing like TikTok or YouTube
| Shorts existed while I was growing up. I _know_ how
| dangerous those are to me, I can 't imagine how dangerous
| they could be to children. Mostly because anything I come
| up would probably be a wild overestimation, but I won't
| know by how much.
|
| Rather than rotting my brain away with shorts as a child I
| spent my time trying to find every possible way to game
| every possible system. That was my idea of fun. Still is,
| though it's gotten harder and harder for me to find systems
| that are easy to game, because the types of systems you
| encounter as an adult tend to have already been gamed to
| death by everyone else.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Uh in the early days porn was even less restricted online
| than it is now. You could grab it at many websites and on
| Usenet (which was still very common in those days). There
| wasn't even a "Yeah I'm 18+, stop bothering me" button.
|
| Only the quality was worse but that was purely due to
| technical constraints (no streaming video)
| SamuelAdams wrote:
| I agree with your ethos, but you must admit that the internet
| of 2025 is very different from the internet of 1980.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Here's a list of things that I wouldn't want the police to do,
| but should be done:
|
| - Kids should be in bed by 8.
|
| - They shouldn't light fires in the back yard.
|
| - They shouldn't run with knives.
|
| If someone tried to use my support for those things as a basis
| for 24/7 surveillance of bedrooms, back yards and knife
| drawers, they'd be insane.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| Should be done? Lol. Talking about culture ethnocentrism
| taking to the extreme. No one forces you not to take your kid
| to bed at 8, or you for that matter. Stay out of my life.
|
| The anglosphere is so full of authoritarian people wanting to
| get into people's lives and even when arguing against
| surveillance you think there's an agreeable common goal we
| should all strive to. No. We don't.
| outer_web wrote:
| 99% sure his point was exactly what you said. "Should be
| done" vs "should be enforced" by the person you demand stay
| out of your life.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| No. Another one who doesn't get it. It shouldn't be done.
|
| The problem is that you don't get it. You think that
| saying "we all agree on X but it's bad for society" gets
| you to eventually acknowledge there's a safer way to do
| X, at least partially.
|
| I'm saying you shouldn't even pretend the first statement
| is acceptable and that implementation is the problem .
|
| Now, that's very nuanced for some and I'll get the
| "you're missing the point, he doesn't want surveillance".
|
| No, you're missing it.
| BlackFly wrote:
| The point you are missing is that he presented what he
| knew to be norms and used language to indicate that they
| are norms (should vs must) and you are somehow confused
| into thinking that he presented them as inalienable
| facts. Commenters thought that if they pointed out the
| nuance of normative assertion vs enforcement you would
| see the distinction but you continue to fail to
| distinguish a normative assertion from a factual one.
|
| I also disagree with you that widespread agreement on
| norms is some problematic slippery slope. Failure to
| distinguish between norms and objectivity as you are
| doing is what leads to widespread norms being enforced
| absurdly by a tyranny of the majority.
| outer_web wrote:
| Okay my bad. I thought you were making an argument
| against intrusive law enforcement but you were actually
| saying kids should run with knives.
| nothrabannosir wrote:
| That was his point.
|
| Ironically enough I've found Americans to be by far the
| most resistant to authority, both societal and
| governmental. Maybe what's shining through from your
| comment isn't how you live in a less authoritarian
| environment, but that its mores just happen to align with
| yours so you're blind to them.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| You misread mine.
|
| The rest of your paragraph is just nothing. A vague
| strawman.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Thank you!!! This website and anglos in general (aussies
| are by far the worst) are little tyrant authoritarians who
| love to lick boots.
| qball wrote:
| >Adults Only by default. Just like public spaces.
|
| This is the attitude that led us to this problem in the first
| place.
|
| >Would you allow an 8 year old to wander New York City
| unattended?
|
| They're at much higher risk of being arrested/abducted by the
| police than they are anything else. This is a uniquely North
| American neurosis; this happens every day in every other
| nation. They take the subway to work/school or walk, like
| everyone else.
| ty6853 wrote:
| The Karens seem to perish in the backcountry. I have seen
| multiple elementary age children operating dirt bikes and
| heavy construction equipment on desert dirt roads.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| I used to take the ATV out as often as I could as a kid,
| riding for miles over some rather treacherous roads with
| 200ft drops on either side and no barriers. Times sure have
| changed.
| repeekad wrote:
| You really think a child is more likely to be abducted by
| police in NYC than anything else? What are you talking about?
| ty6853 wrote:
| Yes do you have children? I had the police called on me for
| taking my kid to the park last time i took a vacation out
| east to a big city. My kid is not the same 'race' as me
| ergo Karen called and they detained my child for an hour
| because that was suspicious (I filed FOIA and got bodycam
| and overheard the witch's complaint on the radio).
|
| Now imagine there was no parent at all...
| AngryData wrote:
| Unless you live in a really bad ghetto where everybody has
| bars on their windows and people warn you to get off the
| streets before sundown, US police are the most likely to
| harm or take people without cause.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| No one in the "ghetto" just randomly takes people's kids.
| zo1 wrote:
| Well they're not allowed to beat up and intimidate
| criminals, so what else are they supposed to do? We've
| turned police into armed Karens.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| They shouldn't be allowed to intimidate _anybody_ or beat
| _anybody_ up unless necessary. I shudder to think about
| such judgements being made based on a high school dropout
| 's likely-malevolent guess at whether I'm a criminal.
| crote wrote:
| Yes? There are plenty of stories of _exactly this_
| happening. People see a kid walking on their own, call the
| cops, who scoop up the kid and charge the parents with
| child endangerment because they were "abandoned". Get
| unlucky, and CPS will be involved.
|
| On the other hand, child kidnapping by strangers isn't
| really a common thing. The vast majority of kids going
| "missing" just did something like going over to play with
| the neighbour's kids without telling their parents, and the
| remainder is taken by their own family. Of the roughly
| 800.000 kids going missing each year, only 100 or so are
| genuinely abducted by a stranger.
|
| So no, a child being more likely to be abducted by a cop
| than by a stranger isn't as strange of a claim as it may
| initially seem.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Lol so different. When i was young (<10) I'd often take
| the train to another city alone. To visit it, or to see
| relatives. It's not super common where I'm from but it's
| surely tolerated.
|
| I'd often see train conductors asking why I was alone and
| then going "ok, fine" though they would keep an eye on me
| usually.
| diddid wrote:
| I don't think it's entirely a mentality issue. I think North
| America created an environment where you wouldn't want your 8
| year old to navigate New York City. I would let my kids
| wander Tokyo before I would let them wander Chicago. Japan
| would not tolerate people spitting at and harassing children
| where Chicago does indeed tolerate that. I'd say ask me how I
| know but you could probably guess.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Guessing leaves me two options, so was you, or your
| children that were spit on?
|
| Also, what could possibly lead to that happening? Someone
| upset they were noisy? Or just that they dared show up at
| all?
| cyberax wrote:
| Drugs and mentally ill people.
| johnisgood wrote:
| LA is full of those. Mostly junkies. My girlfriend often
| has such encounters when she takes the bus. It is awful.
| I am in Hungary and there is no such issues here. It is
| extremely safe in comparison. There was a stabbing (one
| in 30 years) and everyone rushed to help and to catch the
| perpetuator (who ended up stabbing himself anyways).
|
| BTW I am a junkie myself, but I do not engage in such
| behaviors at all. And by "junkie" when referring to
| myself, I mean that I have an addictive personality, but
| I do take opiates ("only") for my mental and physical
| problems. I was never a safety hazard for anyone,
| including myself (there were times when I was, but had
| nothing to do with drugs). I do it at home (and before
| going out, too, due to its positive effects on my
| mobility and pain), and it makes me more emotionally
| stable. It sucks though, because when people think of
| opiates, what they picture is homeless people being
| unconscious on the streets with a needle coming out of
| their arm. No one could ever tell me that I was ever on
| opiates and this includes a lot of doctors. For one, it
| affects me differently (just like any other psychiatric
| medications and other drugs).
|
| Anyways, yeah, junkies are an issue in LA and it pisses
| me off that my girlfriend has to always pay a lot of
| attention because one never knows what they might do.
| They are also loud, they create conflicts, and so forth.
| zo1 wrote:
| And go one step further: The culture that allows drug
| addicts and mentally ill people to do that.
|
| And even further: The culture that doesn't want to fix
| the aforementioned problem with their culture.
| nilamo wrote:
| You were wrong in both cases! The GP went to Chicago and
| spit on people just to prove a point /s
| CalRobert wrote:
| The biggest risk is usually being killed by a driver
| eru wrote:
| > This is a uniquely North American neurosis; this happens
| every day in every other nation.
|
| No. Eg Australia is also full of helicopter parents.
|
| And even Germany has moved a lot in that direction in recent
| decades, even if they ain't nearly as bad as the US.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| Why NYC and what harm are you referring to? General crime like
| murder?
| cameldrv wrote:
| Public spaces are most definitely not "Adults Only" by default.
| You're not allowed to have a big billboard with porn on it, you
| have to show ID to get into a bar, you have to show ID to buy a
| pack of cigarettes, and in many states the cigarettes have to
| be in an opaque cabinet. You can't walk around naked. You can't
| be drunk in public.
|
| Now admittedly many of these things are unevenly enforced, but
| society absolutely does a lot in the physical world to make it
| appropriate for children.
| ty6853 wrote:
| The children didn't seem worse off in the days where a 2nd
| grader could bike 5 miles to the grocery store to buy mom a
| pack of smokes and dad a six pack.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-
| disease/tobacco...
|
| > Long term, smoking rates have fallen 73% among adults,
| from 42.6% in 1965 to 11.6% in 2022.
|
| > Long term, smoking rates have fallen 86% among youth,
| from 36.4% in 1997 to 3.8% in 2021.
|
| I'd say that's better off, not just in childhood but with
| long term effects.
| darioush wrote:
| And how can you attribute this decline to specific laws?
| Seems it could be a result of many things such as public
| education & cancer outcomes becoming obvious.
| abenga wrote:
| When people were told they could smoke from candy-
| flavored USB-charged devices they jumped back on the
| train. Education didn't do anything, and no facts are
| obvious in this new world.
| LoganDark wrote:
| It's because people in general tend to learn and retain
| simplified versions of things. They hear that tobacco in
| cigarettes causes cancer but that candy-colored USB-
| charged devices can come without tobacco and completely
| miss the fact that nicotine is _also_ a terrible
| substance to get hooked on. Even amphetamines are better
| because at least you can stop those whenever you want and
| all that happens is a few days of being sleepy and then
| you 're fine. Try to stop nicotine cold turkey and,
| well...
| Zak wrote:
| Do we have clear evidence for vaping causing harms of
| similar severity and frequency as smoking?
| graemep wrote:
| its not directly education, but education influenced
| fashion. smoking became a blue collar habit in the west,
| and then no longer cool globally.
| mjevans wrote:
| Nuanced difference: Everyone _has_ to traverse all of public
| to get anywhere, hence 'decency laws' so parents can take
| kids around without blindfolds.
|
| You're taking the metaphor a bit too literally.
| lolinder wrote:
| > You're taking the metaphor a bit too literally.
|
| Or maybe the metaphor is flawed?
|
| GP says that public spaces are adult-only by default, the
| parent rightly points out this is nonsense: public spaces
| are Safe for Work (and for kids) by default, and you have
| to prove you're an adult to access the adult-only spaces.
| Which is exactly what laws like this are trying to do _by
| analogy to the physical world_.
|
| It's not OP that's interpreting the metaphor too literally,
| the public-spaces metaphor is literally the main
| justification for these laws and GP doesn't understand how
| public spaces work.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| There is an important difference in the metaphor.
| Physical spaces don't have a user-agent. Therefore the
| space itself has to exclude minors because there is
| nothing else to do it.
|
| The internet does have user agents, and for children the
| user agents are controlled by adults (and if the child
| has the cooperation of an adult, you already can't
| enforce age verification). So now you don't need anyone
| to prove their age in a way that has privacy implications
| and chilling effects because you can have the child's
| user agent notify the site that the user _isn 't_ an
| adult, rather than needing each adult having to prove who
| _is_. Which doesn 't require any form of identification
| because it's just a flag the adult sets on the child's
| device. Therefore anything that _does_ require
| identification is unnecessary and malicious.
| lolinder wrote:
| Right, this is fair. I think the metaphor was terrible,
| and this is a really good explanation for why.
| rijoja wrote:
| Leaving children unattended with random strangers is bad
| parenting this should be obvious to anyone.
| bavell wrote:
| Yeah can't believe all those horrible parents taking kids
| to summer camp...
| darioush wrote:
| Just like to offer a counter-perspective that most billboards
| are basically soft porn.
| genewitch wrote:
| Not in Central Louisiana. I can't remember the last
| tittilating billboard I saw.
| Aeolun wrote:
| > You're not allowed to have a big billboard with porn on it
|
| Most adults would be put off by that as well, I'm not sure if
| this is indicative of public spaces.
|
| That said, I agree that public spaces cannot possibly be
| adult only by default, as children have to traverse them.
| drdo wrote:
| I know it's not the point but fun fact we've had big
| billboards advertising a specific OnlyFans account in a few
| cities in Portugal, with matching picture (not full nudity).
| butlike wrote:
| Attended or unattended, you still hear people cussin' and
| ranting and raving on the NYC subway lines.
| lolinder wrote:
| > The Internet should be Unrated and thus Adults Only by
| default. Just like public spaces.
|
| This is exactly the opposite of the way public spaces actually
| work, and the way that public spaces _actually_ work is the
| very justification for laws like this in the first place! You
| 've just taken their exact rationale and imagined a world that
| would lead that metaphor to the opposite conclusion.
|
| In most of the real-life US, you can't put porn on a billboard,
| you can't sell it in a supermarket, and you can't wear it on a
| shirt. You can't go out naked in public, and you can't engage
| in public sexual activity.
|
| If you _do_ want to buy porn or go into a strip club, you have
| to show ID and go into a distinctly-not-public space behind
| closed doors, often without street-facing windows lest people
| in the public space be able to see inside.
|
| The fact that this is how public spaces work is _why_ these
| laws are written the way that they are--by analogy to real
| public spaces vs real adults-only spaces.
| 7952 wrote:
| The problem with the internet is the mixing of different
| contexts. You can have cute cats, disney fandom, hobbies,
| politics, porn, extremism all on the same platform. In the
| real world you don't have strip clubs at disney world or
| children wandering about in a bar.
| ty6853 wrote:
| In my state children can wander in a bar. They can even sit
| at the stool in front the bar counter. It's considered
| better to allow it than have children neglected at home
| without supervision.
| wongarsu wrote:
| The kind of hierarchies we deem necessary are certainly
| different.
|
| In most of Europe (spoiler: overgeneralization incoming)
| nobody would have an issue with a child walking alone
| through a city, going into a bar and ordering a coke.
| Nobody is going to stop them from taking public transit
| to a book store, and nothing is legally or physically
| preventing them from looking at a couple pages in the
| latest playboy issue in the magazine rack. Though the
| clerk might interfere out of his own judgement, and
| depending on the country they might check your age before
| selling it. You will however be asked for ID before being
| allowed in a strip club, brothel or casino, or before
| being sold a DVD of some action movie.
| Aeolun wrote:
| > You will however be asked for ID before being allowed
| in a strip club, brothel or casino, or before being sold
| a DVD of some action movie.
|
| The action movie too? I've never seen that happen, and
| I'm certain I rented a whole bunch of age inappropriate
| DVD's (or was it VCR's?) back in the day. Maybe we were
| required to be ID'ed and the teenager behind the counter
| just gave zero fucks?
| tharkun__ wrote:
| Again, depends on the country and time I suppose but
| "Video stores" back in the day used to be completely off
| limits to kids where I was. Just couldn't get in until
| 18. I never understood why as a kid.
|
| One time my parents got me in. They had made a deal with
| the owner that I'd be shielded by a parent from seeing
| anything in the store on my way to the small corner of
| "age appropriate" VHSs, so that I could pick out what I
| wanted and then I'd have to leave the store while my
| parents went to rent it, coz from the cashier's counter
| I'd see too much.
|
| Of course today I understand but back then I was just
| like "WTF!, why not!?"
|
| Funny to think about now. It was a tiny corner I could
| see and a huuuuuge store I wasn't allowed in.
| ty6853 wrote:
| This sounds like the one I went to as a kid except the
| kid friendly stuff was up front. Beyond that was a huge
| room full of porn tapes, that iirc was locked so age
| filtering happened at the second door instead.
| jimkoen wrote:
| I've been ID'ed as a teenager when I was trying to buy
| Skyrim, which at the time was rated for audiences older
| than me. Gamestop and electronic retailers also generally
| didn't have teenage employees.
| myvoiceismypass wrote:
| I know movie theaters are different from video rental
| stores - but I once got carded on a date at age 16, to
| see the movie Johnny Pneumonic. It was rated R. Still had
| one more year to go. It was rather embarrassing.
|
| I still have not watched Johnny Pneumonic.
| GlobalFrog wrote:
| Exactly. I really don't understand that some take issue
| of verifying ages. IRL, you can be asked your ID to buy
| porn magazines, drink alcohol... Why would it be a
| nuisance to verify the same things online? Is it because
| you would be asked every time as your data wouldnt be
| stored for privacy issues? So, people are realizing that
| automating everything has drawbacks and that interacting
| with real humans directly has also advantages? Societies
| have evolved over hundreds of years and that has resulted
| in sets of rules to organize them. Would you really
| prefer the real life to have the rules of the internet
| replace what we have IRL?
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Because IRL it is just as inconvenient but it doesn't
| actually happen. I've never been carded in my life. Even
| when I was in my 20s.
| Nevermark wrote:
| The US hard-separates children and adults more than other
| countries.
|
| In Europe, my ex and our two teen daughters could go out
| in the late evening and feel comfortable socializing in
| places that would be unthinkable in the US.
|
| In general, US culture seems to stratify people by ages
| in all sorts of ways, official and just cultural. It
| doesn't feel as socially healthy to me. We are all better
| for having a wide variety of friends and family around
| us.
| yubblegum wrote:
| The problem with the internet is that it is flat. Society
| has hierarchies, has always had hierarchies, and the
| _architecture_ (in the broadest sense) of "RL" societies
| reflected that.
|
| Internet came out of military and academia and had a flat
| namespace. No consideraton whatsoever was given to the idea
| of a 'social model' for it. This was discussed way back in
| late '90s in a yahoo group that has since disappeared:
| _social models for communication networks_.
| EarthMephit wrote:
| You used to walk into a newsagent and see the regular
| papers and magazines, and then the rack of playboy and porn
| just sitting off to the side, often not that far from the
| kids magazines and comics.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Japanese convenience stores still work this way. I'm
| still a bit bemused every time I see scantily clad ladies
| right next to the shounen manga, but maybe it shouldn't
| xD
| somenameforme wrote:
| Dunno if this has changed, but it used to be this way in
| the US at basically any gas station in a ruralish area by
| a highway (in other words - stops with truckers), and
| you'd just have row after row of porn mags. The only
| 'censorship' is that they tended to be in racks that
| covered up about 3/5th of their height, so you could see
| the title and a bit more, but generally anything explicit
| would be in the lower 3/5th that you could only see if
| you picked it up.
| icepat wrote:
| This sounds to me like an argument against platform
| centralization, as the internet itself isn't a platform,
| but a protocol. So this is a problem of platforms, and
| their improper design. Not a problem of the internet
| itself.
| yellowapple wrote:
| > and you can't wear it on a shirt
|
| The widespread proliferation of attire bearing so-called
| "ahegao" faces demonstrates otherwise.
| harry8 wrote:
| First I've heard of ahegao, looked it up.
|
| That's not obscene and one can plausibly argue anyone who
| thinks it so has a dirty mind.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| You're kidding, right? It's literally a pornography
| trope.
| linuxhansl wrote:
| > Would you allow an 8 year old to wander New York City
| unattended?
|
| Yes as long as they know to observe traffic and know how to use
| the subway.
|
| Almost all child adductions are parental kidnappings. This
| "will nobody think of the children..." neurosis is just that, a
| neurosis.
| riffic wrote:
| It used to be quite normal for children to wander cities
| unattended.
| monksy wrote:
| That's kind of how it has been working before all of these
| "child safety" laws have come into place. Pornhub admits that
| they spend quite a bit of money trying to educate people on how
| to filter.
|
| https://www.404media.co/the-pornhub-empire-cbc-podcast/
| agnishom wrote:
| > Would you allow an 8 year old to wander New York City
| unattended?
|
| I would hope that the answer is yes.
|
| This kind of reasoning (not to pick on the commenter above) is
| troubling. People blame cellphones and social media. But what
| are they going to do once they put down their cellphones, if
| not go out? Should they stare at the walls?
|
| Interacting with strangers is a valuable experience. If we do
| not encourage children to interact with strangers, should we be
| surprised when they do not want to participate in civic
| activities as an adult?
| amrocha wrote:
| >Would you allow an 8 year old to wander New York City
| unattended?
|
| I know you meant this as a rhetorical question but honestly,
| the answer should be yes.
|
| And if the city is too dangerous for kids to live in it now,
| then fix that.
|
| Likewise for the internet. Kids are going to use it, we should
| make sure it's designed around that.
|
| That doesn't mean we need surveillance like this though.
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| Usually I don't see people beheaded in NYC but that definitely
| exists online.
|
| I grew up on the uncensored internet, and it was fine, but I
| would not conflate the internet with a public space. From my
| experience the actions and content of the internet are very
| different from the real world.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I mean, it might be easier to find on the internet, but if
| you are dedicated enough I'm sure you can find it in NYC too.
| ryototsu wrote:
| > Would you allow an 8 year old to wander New York City
| unattended
|
| No, but that just means NYC is a crappy place. I regularly see
| 8yr olds wandering Tokyo alone.
| CalRobert wrote:
| You just described why American cities are horrible.
| drdec wrote:
| > Would you allow an 8 year old to wander New York City
| unattended?
|
| Many people do, in fact, do this:
|
| https://reason.com/2021/06/11/free-range-kids-second-edition...
| eru wrote:
| > (Would you allow an 8 year old to wander New York City
| unattended? Arguments can be made for more controlled spaces
| but...)
|
| Sure, why shouldn't 8 year olds wander a city unattended, and
| eg use public transport?
|
| I cycled to school way younger than that. And so did many
| people in the past.
| graemep wrote:
| I would allow an eight year old to go around most areas of most
| British cities. When I was a child lots of kids that age came
| to my school in London by train unaccompanied. Kids that ago go
| to school unaccompanied in the town i now live in. I let my
| kids go to some places by themselves not much older, and do
| quite long journeys from their early teens.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| > Would you allow an 8 year old to wander New York City
| unattended
|
| You might be surprised, but back in the day before
| overprotective parents, "free range kids" were a thing. I was
| riding my bike all over the city (albeit not New York) with
| friends and just told to be home by 8:00 with no cell phones. I
| was 10-11 years old.
|
| Even in Atlanta where my wife grew up she was riding the public
| bus at 12 with her younger brother going to the mall.
| jmholla wrote:
| Everybody keeps keying in on NYC. I thinks better analogy is
| would you let your kid travel the world at their whims without
| you. Because that is the Internet. It is inherently
| international.
| Gollapalli wrote:
| Public spaces should NOT be unrated.
|
| This is a disgusting worldview. The fact that an 8-year-old can
| NOT walk NYC unattended is a disgrace. This is what civilized
| countries actually look like: https://youtu.be/IkVvXVDs5aI That
| American children cannot reasonably do the same any longer is a
| FAILURE of the public trust.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| The web, i.e., websites, is only one example of how "the
| internet" can be used. "The internet" is "Adults Only",
| assuming internet subscribers are persons with bank accounts
| and credit cards to pay internet access fees, i.e., adults.
|
| Web != internet.
| washadjeffmad wrote:
| Who could have predicted this, though? If only there were some,
| no, any benevolent corporate deity poised to provide trusted
| global identity services for an event exactly like this.
|
| If only this hadn't come out of the blue, maybe there'd be
| someone out there, right now, who could make it so that your
| identity traveled with you everywhere across the internet, an
| authentic digital fingerprint and passport so invisible that you
| can't even see or access it to keep people from having to prove
| themselves over and over and over again.
|
| What a solution in search of a problem that would have been!
| 3np wrote:
| How have you not heard about Worldcoin?
|
| /s/s
| genewitch wrote:
| Google should be able to say that I've had continuous access to
| my Gmail account since 2005 and therefore it's impossible for
| me to be under 18. Or 21.
|
| Right?
|
| All of a sudden, the internet is incapable of tracking me with
| that much fidelity. They don't know how old I am. Discord knows
| how old I am. I never told them my birthday.
|
| This gets a big "hrrrrrrr. Durrrrrrr." From me.
| washadjeffmad wrote:
| Like "appearing under the age of 35" for carding for alcohol
| (note also that there's no legal requirement to verify age
| prior to sale), that's not an invalid method of age
| validation; there is no requirement for precision, only
| accuracy.
|
| Having an account that's at least 5 years old, assuming a
| legal age of 13 for registration on most services, should be
| enough.
|
| Some services already do it this way. Others offer to scan
| and analyze your face or ID. Leisure Suit Larry 1 used 1960s
| trivia for age verification.
|
| Given the list of states and awareness of some notable tech
| companies that operate out of them, it sounds like someone is
| doing a little competitive market making with the help of
| their legislators.
| paulvnickerson wrote:
| The solution to this is trusted third party age verification
| services, such as SSL signing authorities, which are baked into
| browsers.
| drdaeman wrote:
| I don't think so. This is _not_ a technical problem - modern
| computers simply have no means to know who 's sitting in front
| of them. And even if someone tries to invent some contraption
| to do so (idk, IR cameras, voice verification, DNA sequencers),
| I must remind that whoever has physical access can still feed
| computer any signals. For simpler methods (like a basic face
| recognition with a webcam to match the ID) spoofing is cheaper
| than the camera, and more sophisticated methods are extremely
| costly and full of undesirable side effects.
| janci wrote:
| Our state-issued eID cards are supposed to have a function that
| allows anonymous age verification to a trusted party. It should
| work like this: a requesting party sends a request signed by
| state-issued certificate to the ID card, the card verifies the
| request authenticity and responds with a signed confirmation of
| legal age and that signature then can be verified by the
| requester.
|
| No personal information is shared.
|
| While I do not aggree with pervasive age restrictions, this is a
| nice technical solution to privacy preserving age verification
| drdaeman wrote:
| Just curious: 1) which country/eID is this? and 2) does it send
| the date of birth back, or does it perform a zero-knowledge
| proof that the date of birth is greater or equal than a given
| value (current date minus age requirement)?
| jer0me wrote:
| A handful of states, including California, have a digital ID
| that can do this. It only sends the fact that you're over a
| certain age.
|
| There's a video halfway down this page showing the process in
| Apple Wallet: https://learn.wallet.apple/id/ (notice "Age
| Over 21")
| rs186 wrote:
| So kids just memorize their parents' driving license when they
| don't pay attention, and this is bypassed, just like in the old
| days.
| Jolter wrote:
| I don't think that's how a state e-ID works.
| djsjajah wrote:
| No. Kids would need to memorize the private key of their
| parents id card.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Really comes down to "how sure do you want to be that the
| person is the right age"? Or the "how hard would it be for a
| preteen to buy beer?" test.
|
| With an eID card, if it's just saying "yes, this person is old
| enough" then any teen can swipe a device with an eID card and
| start using it.
| lll-o-lll wrote:
| So it's tied to biometrics/other 2nd factor as with passkeys.
| Wouldn't stop mini-me of course...
| Aloisius wrote:
| _> No personal information is shared._
|
| You'd know the state they're a legal resident of as they use
| state-specific keys used for signatures.
|
| If the request allows checking arbitrary ages like Apple's,
| then you can get their age with a handful of requests. If one
| has to verify every visit, then you can get exact birthdate
| eventually.
|
| If the one verifying has to pass data to the verifier site or
| the request to the verifier has any site/app/company-specific
| IDs (again, Apple), then you're leaking what you're visiting to
| the verifier.
|
| And not to beat a dead horse, but as long as there are
| jurisdictions that don't require age verification in the world,
| children can easily use a free VPN or proxy to avoid checks
| altogether at which point, one has to ask, why do it at all?
| solidsnack9000 wrote:
| "...at which point, one has to ask, why do it at all?"
|
| It seems like this line of thinking would lead you to ask the
| same question of literally any law, wouldn't it?
|
| Laws often don't rely on being 100%. Even though there is a
| law saying people need to wear a seat belt, they can just not
| wear it! So what's the point, &c, &c?
| Aloisius wrote:
| If you don't wear a seatbelt, you can be ticketed. Not only
| is enforcement practical, but it has a measurable impact on
| behavior.
|
| If you use a VPN to visit a porn site to bypass age
| verification, you haven't broken the law as it applies to
| _sites_ , not users. There will be no measurable impact on
| underage people visiting since the barriers to VPNs/proxies
| are almost nil while still costing money to enforce on non-
| tech savvy adults - an overall detriment to society.
|
| Laws that are unenforceable and don't benefit society are
| bad laws.
| Y_Y wrote:
| > If the request allows checking arbitrary ages like Apple's,
| then you can get their age with a handful of requests. If one
| has to verify every visit, then you can get exact birthdate
| eventually.
|
| If you assume a sensible rate limit, that entering the check
| is voluntary (and unlikely to fail), and that people age
| monotonically, then it's going to require a lot of
| cooperation from the victim to get more than a couple of bits
| of entropy.
|
| I wouldn't trust Apple here regardless, since they are not
| the state and have their own separate interests.
| alwayslikethis wrote:
| You can get the age quite quickly with a binary search. If
| everyone is between 1 and 100, that's no more than 7
| requests. The only way this wouldn't hurt privacy
| excessively is that it has to work the other way around.
| You, not the app, requests a verification token from a
| government API that only says you are above 18 which
| expires once in a while. The token should bear no other
| information about you and be single use so it cannot be
| correlated between different sites. For the US, it should
| also be on a federal level (the verification scheme, not
| the age verification requirement) to reduce the bits from
| knowing your state, which is a lot for small states.
| kallistisoft wrote:
| There's an issue with the flow you described; the party
| requesting verification shouldn't directly interact with the
| verifying agent (the state) as this leaks to the state the
| identity of the requesting 3rd party.
|
| The correct flow for preserving anonymity is: the requesting
| party issues a challenge token to the user -- the token header
| describes the type of request (>=18yo?) and the token body is
| completely random( _). The user then takes this token and has
| the challenge verified (signed)_ on their side _, the signed
| token is then returned to the requester.
|
| This way the state never knows the identity of the challenge
| issuer.
|
| (_) Note that this scheme requires good faith on the part of
| the challenge issuer that the token body is actually random,
| although it would seem that a simple DH-key mechanism would
| patch this vulnerability.
| janci wrote:
| I think it is a tradeoff between "everybody can request age
| verification" and "only state-licensed parties can request
| age verification". I don't think everybody's ID card should
| tell anyone if the holder is adult or not, especially
| wirelessly
| giantg2 wrote:
| "no method of age verification is both privacy-protective and
| entirely accurate."
|
| No method of age verification is entirely actuate. It seem a
| hardline stance that we can't think up a process that would allow
| for a reasonable level of accuracy with privacy. It could
| literally be drawing a usb token from a bucket full of them after
| a human at the DMV visually checks your license.
| masfuerte wrote:
| There was a serious proposal to do something like this in the
| UK [1] the last time the government tried to introduce age
| checks for online porn. Age checks are becoming mandatory this
| July but the idea of having a privacy-respecting option seems
| to have been dropped.
|
| [1]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/porn-
| passes-...
| genewitch wrote:
| That's cool. Do you think they'll mind if I surreptitiously put
| a couple of thumb drives of my own into the bucket?
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| I have my California Drivers License in my Apple Wallet.
|
| I should be able to prove to iPhone apps that I am 18+ (only a
| binary yes/no with no metadata) by the apps making a local API
| call to iOS, which checks this information with the unexpired
| drivers license on device.
| inetknght wrote:
| What if you're born on February 29th?
|
| What if you're borth on March 1st and it's currently February
| 29, 18 years later?
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I don't know that I care for the solution, but why would the
| API have a problem with either of those scenarios? What
| datetime library are you using that does, and why haven't you
| switched?
| slyall wrote:
| Age Laws worry about dates. They don't care about leap years,
| time of birth or timezones.
| 3np wrote:
| That is trusting both Apple and the client, and also only works
| for iPhone.
|
| We can do better with zero-knowledge-proof-based schemes, which
| also allow securely decoupling issuance/certification from
| online verification.
|
| E.g. https://linc.cnil.fr/en/demonstration-privacy-preserving-
| age...
| whatshisface wrote:
| It's a privacy issue as long as Jim's Blackmail and
| Certificates, Inc. knows who they've certified.
| robto wrote:
| I wonder if there's any chance of technology like Verifiable
| Credentials[0] getting any adoption because of these laws. I
| think there are legitimate use cases where you would want to say,
| "hey, some third-party authority can vouch for me that ____", and
| not reveal to the third party who's asking for verification and
| not reveal to the party requiring verification any other claim
| besides the specific one that they need (say, age in this case).
|
| [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verifiable_credentials
| nesk_ wrote:
| What's insane is that, in France, we have France Connect, which
| is exactly what you describe: a third-party authentication
| platform maintained by the government.
|
| Lately, a new law just passed to force porn websites to check
| the age of visitors. I would have been fine with an
| authentication going through France Connect:
|
| - the gov knows which website you went to, just like your DNS
| provider would, but it doesn't which content - and the website
| knows which content you've watched but not who's watching.
|
| Best of both worlds!
|
| But no, we have to send a copy of our ID card to the website,
| which is INSANE because the website knows WHO you are and WHAT
| you're watching.
| notTooFarGone wrote:
| It's mind boggling that governments don't offer that service
| for a lump sum per month
| mannyv wrote:
| When the Internet was built there was an expectation of
| anonymity. But anonymity and privacy are not quite the same.
|
| And in fact, the Internet is not anonymous or private, as there
| are multiple ways to track and surveil members of the general
| public.
|
| IMO the next step in the Internet's evolution needs to be the
| authenticated internet. An Authenticated Internet pretty much
| removes all the security issues, since every connection is
| authenticated. And authentication doesn't necessarily mean you're
| not anonymous.
|
| Right now the Internet has become the worst of both worlds - not
| private, not anonymous, and all the problems associated with that
| (insecure, spoonable, etc).
|
| That's what the EFF has wrong: the Internet is already a backdoor
| to surveillance. They're trying to stick their finger in the
| dyke. But what needs to happen is to rebuild the whole thing.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| No. You want it because you want "total security" to feel safe
| but your authoritarian world doesn't make me and others feel
| safe. Thankfully, the government wants the power so they'll use
| it against dissidents when it matters hence you'll get a
| semblance of your way.
|
| You can't block technology though. Government or not. People
| find a way.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| Meh. Hackernews users will be mostly in favour of any authotarian
| measure if advertised for it enough because they're all for some
| "imposed greater good" and slightly disagree on "implementation".
|
| COVID policies managing to get mainstream support already proved
| that.
|
| Don't cry when they turn it up to 11. This is what they tell you
| to ask for and you do.
|
| The rest of us will continue fighting for "our freedumbs" no
| matter what governments do.
| outer_web wrote:
| Nonspecific covid policies getting support from "the
| mainstream" is proof that HN will support authoritarianism?
|
| Huh.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| Yes. That was the most clear cut case of authoritarianism
| I've ever seen in the post Berlin wall era.
|
| It's not hard to grasp if you read a constitution and see how
| right to assemble, right to work, right to bodily autonomy,
| right to speak, all got attacked in different degrees in
| different countries across the world with apparent widespread
| support. Of course, censorship of any alternative played a
| part and non compliance by people who pretended to comply
| happened all the time but by and large the authoritarian tune
| was sung.
|
| Now, you can call me one of the typical labels that were in
| vogue back then but, it doesn't really change facts.
| outer_web wrote:
| Uh what?
|
| Brief shelter in place orders followed by limitations on*
| occupancy of commercial spaces is proof that HN will
| embrace deanonymizing the internet?
|
| You are also gonna have to help me out what I am supposed
| to call you.
| JanisErdmanis wrote:
| It does sounds like that the author is not aware of existence of
| zero knowledge range proofs for identity based authetification
| (anonymous credentials). In essence they work as follows: a third
| party vouches a commitment for your birth year into a commitment
| with a signature. This then can be used for to be shown to a
| service provider along with a range proof to ensure that the age
| limit gets respected. That way service provider does not learn
| your year while can ensure that all members respect some required
| age limit.
| Aloisius wrote:
| _> a third party vouches_
|
| If the only porn requires this, then the third party has a
| record of every single person who wants to view porn.
| JanisErdmanis wrote:
| The third party vouches commitments with their year of birth
| for all individuals. The secret opening can be distributed to
| citizens with their identity card. Also multiple properties
| can be signed at the same time like location coordinates that
| can be used for other purposes and hence not making vouching
| exclusive to age verification.
| rs186 wrote:
| How does that third party know my birth year?
|
| And the precision of one year is way too low.
| tzs wrote:
| I don't know about the specific systems he is thinking of but
| I think the general approach is to use a third party that
| already knows that.
| TZubiri wrote:
| This is one of those issues that is almost purely political.
|
| Either you believe the state is out to get you, or you believe
| that kids shouldn't access porn.
|
| Free software maxis will tell you that age laws are surveillance
| and that child pornography is an excuse to have subpoena
| mechanisms.
| qingcharles wrote:
| But this law doesn't stop kids from accessing porn. It just
| moves the problem?
| autoexec wrote:
| > California's AB-728 mandates age verification for anyone
| purchasing skin care products or cosmetics that contain certain
| chemicals like Vitamin A or alpha hydroxy acids. On the surface,
| this may seem harmless--who doesn't want to ensure that minors
| are safe from harmful chemicals?
|
| Why would we want to keep minors safe from "harmful chemicals"
| but not adults? If skin cream products with Vitamin A or alpha
| hydroxy acids are harmful, and I'm entirely unconvinced they are
| (at reasonable concentrations), lets just get rid of them.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Why would we want to keep minors safe from "harmful
| chemicals" but not adults?_
|
| My understanding is they're harmful if misused.
| amrocha wrote:
| That can be said about pretty much anything though. Don't
| drink shampoo!
| genewitch wrote:
| Why does it have fruit on the bottle then?
| amrocha wrote:
| Deceptive advertising! haha
| Aeolun wrote:
| Pencils are harmful if misused. They make for effective
| stabbing.
|
| Is this about the chance about being inadvertedly misused to
| the point they're harmful.
|
| I dunno, by all means, don't sell them to kids, but should we
| really forbid a 15 year old unless they can show some form of
| ID? They're not any more likely to do something dumb with it
| than an 18 year old.
| squigz wrote:
| Probably for the same reason we allow adults to smoke and drink
| but not children.
| balamatom wrote:
| Not really.
|
| The reason "we", scratch that, the reason _the state_ allows
| adults to drink and smoke is because adults have been known
| to _fight back_ , sometimes quite effectively, when they
| _feel like_ something is been "taken away" from them. The
| obvious example here is the rise of bootlegging during
| prohibition; all that did was empower the organized criminal
| class, rather than get the nation to realize the awesome
| benefits of being a _sober_ working stiff. That 's why
| contemporary Western states disincentivize harmful goods by
| taxation, and gradual, rather than total, prohibition.
|
| Consuming liquor and tobacco are also traditional communal
| activities, dating from before the total enclosure of
| industrial civilization upon people's personal lives.
| Meaning, people would actually be inclined to fight for the
| right to carry on like they're used to. This is one of the
| greatest motivators ever; very much not the case with the
| more novel intoxicating substances, even where those might
| actually be less harmful than good old alcohol and nicotine.
|
| I'm all for creating an environment that encourages people to
| make optimal choices about their own lives. Generally, we do
| not live in an environment that even _makes that possible_.
| Case in point, why would one be driven to apply the toxic
| skin creams in question, if they did not have toxic beauty
| standards imposed on them in the first place? How do "we
| protect the children" from _those_ , when all over the world
| conformance with Adobe Photoshop's idea of the human form can
| directly determine the social market value of a human being?
|
| The answer is, we have no idea - we're not even asking
| ourselves the questions that make sense, because "protecting
| the children" is a moral _scam_. A just society would protect
| _the inexperienced and the powerless_ , regardless of age -
| and, conversely, acknowledge the personhood and autonomy of
| all citizens in accordance with their demonstrated degree of
| self-awareness, rather than determine their human rights by
| some involuntary biological marker. I don't know how that
| society would work in practice, I'm only here to remind you
| that instead we live in another kind of society - one that is
| based on the non-consensual extraction of human resources.
| Such a society has no incentive to "protect" most of anyone.
| All it needs is to raise obedient children into dependent
| adults. (It also needs a stable population of scapegoats -
| "juvenile delinquents" growing into "hardened criminals", who
| are to be blamed for all dysfunction.)
|
| Minors are an oppressed minority. They are subjected to
| extensive brainwashing, and deprivations of liberty that
| society claims are "for their own good". These rather serve
| the preservation of power structures, which start with the
| oppressor's drive to forget their formerly oppressed status.
| Thus, the purpose of age verification can only ever be the
| violation of privacy and autonomy of all market participants;
| it will do absolutely nothing to prevent kids from emulating
| the harmful and unmoderated behaviors of the adults around
| them.
| squigz wrote:
| Spot the American. Not everyone has such an inherently
| negative view of "the state"
| balamatom wrote:
| Frankly, I've observed the exact opposite: Americans
| strongly tend toward the mandatorily pro-social, and it's
| their vernacular discourse which treats the social
| establishment as fundamentally well-intentioned and
| legitimate.
| immibis wrote:
| > The reason "we", scratch that, the reason the state
| allows adults to drink and smoke is because adults have
| been known to fight back, sometimes quite effectively, when
| they feel like something is been "taken away" from them.
|
| Which is also the same reason adults are allowed to do all
| these other things, like buying toxic skin creams.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| California _does_ keep adults safe from chemicals already -
| there 's special Prop 65 labels you have to put on things in
| California if they contain chemicals.
| LPisGood wrote:
| Quick correction: everything contains chemicals.
| throwaway81348 wrote:
| correct that's why everything in california, including the
| air in parking garages, is labeled with P65
| LPisGood wrote:
| You know what, when I spent a summer there I do remember
| it being hilarious how many things had warnings.
| N2yhWNXQN3k9 wrote:
| Hilarious that we've decided to exist in a toxic
| environment daily? Or hilarious that California is the
| only state that mandates people tell you that?
|
| Don't worry, they still can poison the water you use:
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-epa-san-
| francisco...
| hot_gril wrote:
| I saw a P65 warning on a car.
| almosthere wrote:
| It's literally on my truck - never bothered to remove the
| sticker.
| genewitch wrote:
| What percentage of people do you think know that the air
| inside of a parking garage is carcinogenic?
| N2yhWNXQN3k9 wrote:
| > if they contain chemicals
|
| If they contain known substances that cause cancer or birth
| defects*. There are plenty of substances that can harm you
| that aren't subject to requiring P65 warnings.
| croes wrote:
| Everything is harmful in the wrong dosage
| Item_Boring wrote:
| In the recent years there's been a boom in kids using skin care
| - often products though that aren't meant for them. And with
| kids I mean pre-teens. Some have even become influencers
| themselves.
|
| However, there's also been a rise in reports in kids damaging
| their skin by using these products in the first place or using
| them wrongly (vitamin A and AHA are amazing but they are very
| tricky to handle and can easily lead to chemical burns /
| retinol burns ...).
|
| I don't think there's any good reason to let kids handle those
| on their own. And stuff like retinol is starting to get
| regulated for "everyone" anyway.
| tzs wrote:
| For the issue of underage people purchasing products they should
| not be able to I wonder if this could be handled by requiring
| sellers to only accept payment by credit card, and to only
| complete the sale if the shipping address matches the credit card
| account address?
|
| A child could borrow an adult's card, but then the items would be
| shipped to that adult's address which could make it hard for the
| child to get them without that adult noticing, and the purchase
| should show up on the next credit card statement further
| increasing the chances the adult will notice if the child is
| surreptitiously using the adult's credit card.
|
| Maybe even require the listing on the credit card statement to
| have a prominent annotation stating that there were purchases of
| age restricted products that month.
|
| This wouldn't stop all such purchases, but it should make it
| harder and it should make it easier for parents to find out that
| it is happening.
| beeflet wrote:
| I feel like minors should be allowed to buy some stuff online
| as long as there is age verification for alcohol or whatever.
| They can go to a store and buy stuff in-person, so why not
| precommunicator wrote:
| In my country people above 13, but under 18 are allowed to have
| debit cards (Mastercard/Visa) and bank accounts themselves
| (with parent's permission and automatic power of attorney to
| this account) I've had an account, card and state-issued ID
| since I was 13, all look the same as for any adult, the only
| difference being the date of birth on that ID. My parents just
| agreed, and didn't ever check or accessed the account (nor they
| probably even knew how).
| hayst4ck wrote:
| Almost no discussion matters as long as Google Analytics/fonts is
| embedded in almost every website you visit. EFF is looking at
| individual grains of sand on a beach of surveillance.
|
| Pornhub publishes insights on their blog where they include an
| age/gender/country breakdown of their viewers. That data must
| come from somewhere, likely google analytics or something like
| it, which means that there is a thriving surveillance market
| whether there is age verification or not.
|
| The surveillance is already happening, there isn't any need to
| backdoor it because it's already there.
|
| People think google is a search company, but it's not. People
| think Facebook is a social media company, but it's not.
|
| They are _privatized intelligence_ companies, intelligence as in
| the I in CIA. And rather than that intelligence being used to,
| said charitably, make America a safer place, that intelligence is
| being leveraged to make rich people richer and less regulated.
|
| Not enough of a spotlight is on privatized intelligence
| functions. It's no wonder it feels like corporations have more
| power than the government, they have access to mini privatized
| CIAs, with arguably much less oversight.
| monksy wrote:
| > Pornhub publishes insights on their blog where they include
| an age/gender/country breakdown of their viewers. That data
| must come from somewhere, likely google analytics or something
| like it, which means that there is a thriving surveillance
| market whether there is age verification or not.
|
| Data brokers. But that data isn't exactly accurate. Relatively
| over the large population yes. Accurate for identifying
| indivdual users: no.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| It pisses me off the see you accuse them of being spook
| adjacent when the real "private intelligence" companies are
| much more mundane and lucrative: they are known as expert
| networks:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_network
| CaffeineLD50 wrote:
| Preventing kids from being exploited online is a _damn good
| thing_ , whether its porn companies, Facebook, or CSAM PDFs doing
| the exploiting.
|
| Maybe we can even protect adults from being exploited online one
| of these days too (obviously not in the current US
| administration, but some day).
| whoitwas wrote:
| They are. There's no need for them. Parents should parent.
| yusyusyus wrote:
| Back in the day, during the short-lived reign of Communications
| Decency Act's provisions for dealing with pornographic material
| and minors, there emerged a site called sexkey.com that would
| provide a sort of SSO experience for doing age verification. That
| is, one would verify their age with sexkey.com and then, at
| participating sites, one would do a lil SSO bounce to verify age.
|
| When the CDA's porn provisions were struck down, the sort of
| industry argument was that they'd use the PICS site ratings and
| the content could be blocked in proxy/client side. This made a
| lot of sense in the context of the V-chip mandates of the 90's.
| AFAIK browsers stopped supporting this a long time back.
| croes wrote:
| Everything of this kind of protection can be used for
| surveillance
| alecco wrote:
| What if all the porn, adult, crypto, gambling, etc. content was
| in a separate part of Internet? Like a red lights district. Or at
| least be easily blocked (but with laws requiring them to help
| blocklists or IP/domain).
|
| In meatspace there are rules of how close those can be from
| schools and churches (of any denomination).
| buyucu wrote:
| most of the ''protect the kids!'' rhetoric originates from the
| government who want to use it as a smoke screen to push
| authoritarian surveillance laws.
| TZubiri wrote:
| We should recognize that this is a political issue and that a
| problem exists that needs a solution.
|
| One party to the debate claiming that the solution (age
| verification) to the problem (kids accessing adult content) is
| imperfect, is worthless.
|
| We know what the position of the EFF or FSF is on the matter,
| they prioritize online privacy over kid safety, got it. But if
| the message is going to be that the solution has a problem and
| there is no more contributions, then the implicit proposal is
| that there needs to be no solution and the initial problem is
| ignored.
|
| If the opposition to current age verification take this naive
| approach of denouncing age verification and offering no
| solutions, they will be kept at the sidelines while the adults
| vote in the senate for these solutions. Newsflash, you lost the
| debate, if you want back in, you are going to need more than
| this.
| c22 wrote:
| Online privacy is a key component of kid's safety on the
| internet.
| TZubiri wrote:
| It's also a huge risk.
|
| The privacy of attackers is a risk to kid safety.
|
| The privacy of messages sent is a risk to kid safety (law
| enforcement should be able to access them)
|
| The privacy of chilren activity is a risk to their safety
| (Parents should be able to view what their children do.)
| c22 wrote:
| Yes, parental responsibility is perhaps the most critical
| component of kid safety.
|
| However, I know of no children who independently acquired
| and maintain a device with a connection to the internet.
| Are you entirely sure we need a governmental edict to allow
| parents to monitor and influence what their kids see and do
| online?
|
| Should law enforcement be able to access messages sent to
| my kid? I'm going to have to say no to this one.
| TZubiri wrote:
| It's not a matter of should government be allowed to
| protect kids. They already do, that's not the discussion.
|
| In the same way that parents can control what kids do
| with their devices, so can governments and they do, all
| the time. Through regulation they control what software
| companies like Google or Apple approve for kids, and they
| can control or subpoena data from kid apps.
|
| >Should law enforcement be able to access messages sent
| to my kid? I'm going to have to say no to this one.
|
| 100% should, and 100% does, you are misinformed on what
| is and what should be. Thankfully you are not in charge
| of this decisions.
| Spivak wrote:
| I think this analysis presumes that the initial problem is real
| and the concern for it is made in good faith. The senate isn't
| immune to concern trolling and "protecting the children" is
| probably the most famous and most used smokescreen for people
| with ulterior motives. Accepting the premise is not usually a
| good strategy.
|
| And we don't even have to speculate anymore what they are
| because the plan is out in the open. So when someone shows up
| with what is ostensibly a non-problem in the real world but the
| solution to which happens to be the legal tool they need for
| this other less popular worse thing they've loudly said they
| want I think it's normal and intellectually honest for that to
| be the analysis. "The EFF doesn't care about child safety" is
| _exactly_ what they wanted you to say to dismiss any reasoned
| opposition.
| TZubiri wrote:
| That's a great way to be excluded from a political
| conversation, pretend that the other side does not exist and
| that we are a strawman from a conspiracy.
|
| How about recognizing the inevitable conflict between two
| priorities: kid safety and online privacy? Simple thing
| really.
|
| Again, you don't need to do this, but you will be ignored and
| put in a kiddy table while the adults talk in the senate and
| in school boards.
|
| Most schools have deep inspecting firewalls btw. Go tell them
| that it's an invasion onto kid's privacy, and that you should
| be able to speak with them without their parents or guardians
| snooping. See how they look at ya
| tfourb wrote:
| This wouldn't be a problem if the U.S. had decent privacy laws
| that were enforceable against both private companies and the
| government, as well as some form of actual government issued ID.
|
| The German constitution actually provides for a "right to
| informational self-determination", i.e. any individual has the
| right to decide what happens with their personal information,
| including what websites they visit.
|
| We also have a standard governmen-issued ID. In combination that
| makes it possible for private companies to offer web-based age
| verification, that check you ID-number against a government-
| provided service, verifying the age but not providing additional
| information. And because of the privacy laws, it would be a
| criminal offense to store the identity of the person being
| verified or for that information to be connected with the website
| you visit.
|
| The website in turn gets a legal record that they verified the
| age of the person, but not necessarily the actual identity of the
| person.
|
| Ideally, in the end each party only gets a piece of the total
| picture but by confirming to each other that the piece they have
| checks out, you can confirm your age to a porn site without any
| single party being able to piece the entire picture together.
| abc123abc123 wrote:
| The internet should be free, open and uncensored. Parents should
| then have the obligation of looking after their children.
|
| Yes, that means not buying a smartphone and give it to your 3
| year old.
|
| I think, slowly, the world is starting to realize this.
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| >Yes, that means not buying a smartphone and give it to your 3
| year old.
|
| Agreed.
|
| >I think, slowly, the world is starting to realize this.
|
| Unlikely. You'd be surprised at the proportion of parents that
| want to outsource parenting to the govt.
| jrmg wrote:
| The age you picked here makes your argument obviously right.
| But what age _should_ people get a phone and be able to use it
| unsupervised? I don't think it's reasonable that it be 21 or
| 18, even 16 feels quite puritanical.
| gabeio wrote:
| Privacy Passes for adults where age verification is needed would
| be an interesting solution. The government hands you as many
| tokens as you'd like to access websites as an "adult". Defaulting
| to getting tokens so that it isn't only people accessing websites
| for only adults which are grabbing tokens. I'm know this is a
| newer project but Kagi implemented this as a way to completely
| decouple users from their searches, when the user would like to
| be fully anonymous.
|
| https://privacypass.github.io/
| LinuxBender wrote:
| I stand by my statement that the laws need only require servers
| and clients use the RTA header. [1] Not perfect but perfect is
| the enemy of good or so they say. No leakage, privacy compliant.
| Contact your reps.
|
| [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43249230
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-08 23:01 UTC)